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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/3/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/3/2025. Currently claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-8, filed 11/3/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of:
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 15-18 rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Armitage
Claim(s) 2, 4, 9-14 and 19 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Armitage
Claim(s) 3 and 20 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Armitage in view of Altshuler
have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the additional reference of Lin et al (WO 2013034525) as outlined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “physical locks” recited in claims 1, 15 and 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armitage et al (US 20090289582) hereafter known as Armitage in view of Lin et al (WO 2013034525) hereafter known as Lin
Independent claim
Regarding claim 1:
Armitage discloses:
An irradiation device for irradiating an irradiation object with light [see Figs. 1-2 and abstract… “Lamp systems, lamp assemblies, and methods of operating a lamp system are provided”], comprising:
at least one light source [see Fig. 1 elements 18 and para 25… “lamp 18”] with an identification unit [see Fig. 1 element 26] which contains light source- specific information [see para 26… “A data carrier 26 is mounted on the lamp assembly 24, in order to be readable by a data reader (not shown) carried in the lamp head 10.” And abstract… “The data carrier is configured to store an identifier, or operational data, or data representing the number of hours of operation, or data representing the lamp type associated with the lamp assembly, or any combination thereof.”];
a reflective frame [see Figs. 1-2 element 10 and para 24… “The lamp head 10 may include a reflector (not shown), which includes a reflective surface partially surrounding the lamp 18 for reflecting radiation onto a substrate”], with at least one light source holder, on which the at least one light source is arranged by form-fitting insertion into the light source holder [see Figs. 1-2 elements 20 which are light source holders and para 25… “The lamp assembly 24 includes lamp 18 and end fixtures 20, which are secured to terminal ends 22 of lamp 18.”];
a region which enables a detection field of a communication device, wherein the identification unit is positioned on the at least one light source in such a way that the identification unit is positioned within the detection field by form- fitting insertion into the light source holder” [see Fig. 1-2 which show the light source (elements 18) positioned into light source holder (element 20) and see para 25-26…“A data carrier 26 is mounted on the lamp assembly 24, in order to be readable by a data reader (not shown) carried in the lamp head 10.” the space between which the data reader (i.e. a communication device) interacts with the data carrier is at least providing a detection field as claimed. Thus, the place where the data carrier is placed on the light source holder is a region as claimed]
However, Armitage fails to fully disclose “wherein the identification unit is positioned on the at least one light source in such a way that after rotating the light source about a longitudinal axis of the light source by an angle of between 35 and 160 degrees, the identification unit is positioned within the detection field by form-fitting insertion into the light source holder” and fails to disclose “wherein physical locks are provided on the light source or on the light source holder, which makes it impossible to insert and fix the light source in the irradiation device so that the identification unit does not come to rest in the detection region” as claimed.
Lin discloses in the analogous art of light devices [see abstract… “The present utility model relates to a holder (1) for an LED lighting device (2), wherein the holder (1) comprises a first connection member (3) connected to a power supply and a second connection member (4) connected to the LED lighting device (2)”] a first connection member [see Fig. 1 element 3], second connection member [see Fig. 1 element 4] and latch locking means made of insertion holes and locking latches [see Fig. 1-2 elements 6 and 7 and pg. 7 lines 9-20… “In said embodiment, there are provided locking latches 6 distributed circumferentially on an end surface of the first connection member 3 and locking insertion holes 7 distributed axially on an end surface of the second connec-tion member 4 . Of course, it is worth considering that the locking latches 6 may be disposed on the second connection member 4 and the locking insertion holes 7 may be provided on the first connection member 3 Thus, the locking between first connection member 3 and the second connection member the can be realized in a simple manner.”] that rotates and locks the rotation position between the two connections members and thereby the connected light and holder for the purpose of ensuring the lighting device can rotate relative to the holder to illuminate at a suitable angle [see Figs. 1-2 and pg. 2 lines 5-30 and pg. 3 lines 1-20… “a first connection member connected to a power supply and a second connection member connected to the LED lighting device, wherein the first connection member and the second connection member are rotationally connected, and further comprising a latch locking means for locking or releasing the rotation therebetween. By arranging the first connection member and the second connection member of the holder, it can be ensured that the LED lighting device moving with the second connection member is set to rotate relative to the first connection member and further relative to the holder, such that the orientation of the LED lighting device may be adjusted relative to the holder to achieve illumination at a suitable angle.”]. Lin further discloses the lock latching holes as being set at preset angles and therefore locking at preset angles that extend at consecutively increasing angles understood to range between 0-360 degrees [see Fig. 1 elements 7 and pg. 3 lines 20-31… “The interval angle for the locking insertion holes may be selected to adjust precision according to needs. In a particularly preferred embodiment according to the present utility model, said angle is 15°C. The locking insertion holes may be arranged in a progressively increasing manner or in other suitable manners, for example, the locking insertion holes may be arranged in the order of 2°C-4°C-6°C.”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Armitage by including a first connection member, second connection member and latch locking means that rotates the light and locks the light relative to the frame at a set position similarly to that disclosed by Lin for the purpose of positioning the device to illuminate at a suitable angle.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the time the invention was filed to further modify Armitage in view of Lin by setting the locking means and the connection members so that after a rotation of an angle of 35 to 160 degrees of Armitage in view of Lin’s light source relative to the holder so that identification unit is always positioned within the detection filed because 35-160 degrees is a subset of range of motion 0-360 degrees taught by Armitage in view of Lin (i.e. thereby fully reciting “wherein physical locks are provided on the light source or on the light source holder, which makes it impossible to insert and fix the light source in the irradiation device so that the identification unit does not come to rest in the detection region.” And “wherein physical locks are provided on the light source or on the light source holder, which makes it impossible to insert and fix the light source in the irradiation device so that the identification unit does not come to rest in the detection region” as claimed).
Regarding claim 2
Armitage in view of Lin discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
However, the embodiment of Figs. 1-2 of Armitage disclosed by Armitage in view of Lin is silent as to the exact orientation of detection field. Thus, Armitage in view of Lin fails to disclose “wherein the detection field extends substantially perpendicularly from the frame”.
Another embodiment of Armitage discloses the detection field extends substantially perpendicularly from the frame [see Figs. 3 which shows the detection field (i.e. space with arrows) between data carrier (i.e. identification unit) and reader/ writer (i.e. a communication unit) perpendicular to the lamp head (i.e. the frame). Additionally, Armitage discloses the scope includes modifications between the different embodiments (understood to include combinations between embodiments) [see para 51].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was filed to modify Armitage in view of Lin so that “the detection field extends substantially perpendicularly from the frame” as this is merely a subcombination of combinations disclosed by Armitage.
Regarding claims 4, 9 and 19:
Armitage in view of Lin discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Additionally, Armitage in view of Lin disclosed the data carrier (i.e. the identification unit) is mounted to frame [see Fig. 2 element 26 relative to the element 20 (part of the frame) and para 26 of Armitage].
However, Armitage in view of Lin fails to disclose the exactly how the identification unit is mounted to the light and is silent as to the distance between identification unit, communication and the region relative to each other. Thus, Armitage in view of Lin fails to disclose “wherein the region is designed as a recess in the frame” as recited by claim 4, “wherein the distance between the identification unit and the communication device is greater than the distance between the communication device and the region” as recited by claim 9, or “wherein the region is designed as a milled out region” as recited by claim 19.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Armitage in view of Lin by mounting the identification unit to the frame by placing the identification into the frame (i.e. using a recess) because there are limited number of ways to mount the identification relative to frame (i.e. mounting identification unit into the frame, mounting the identification unit on top of the frame, or mounting the identification unit flush to the frame) and mounting the identification into the frame (i.e. using a recess) is one of those limited number of ways of mounting. Additionally, as the region includes a recess at the bottom of which the identification unit is mounted by being within, the distance between the identification unit and the communication device is understood to be greater than the communication unit and the region (i.e. claim 9). Finally, as stated in MPEP 2113, patentability is determined by the product itself for an apparatus claim. Thus, the process of milling to produce the groove is interpreted to have little patentable weight and when considered with regard to the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, see para 25 of Armitage [see “each end fixture 20 is made of a ceramic material”] which discloses element 20 of Armitage (i.e. the region) as being made of a ceramic (i.e. non-metallic).
Regarding claims 6-8, see para 27 of Armitage which discloses the data carrier (i.e. the identification unit) as being a RFID tag (i.e. specific coding of claim 6) with non-volatile memory device that is understood to allow information to be read (i.e. claim 7) and written (i.e. claim 8).
Regarding claim 10:
Armitage in view of Lin discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Armitage in view of Lin is silent as to the distance between the communication device and the frame. Thus, Armitage in view of Lin fails to disclose “wherein the distance between the communication device and the frame is between 2 mm and 10 mm”.
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill to space communication device and the frame between 2-10 mm apart because Applicant has not disclosed that spacing the communication device and the frame between 2-10 mm apart provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Armitage in view of Lin’s irradiation device, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the spacing taught by Armitage in view of Lin or the claimed between 2 mm and 10 mm because both spacing would provide the same result of aiding the irradiation device to function properly.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Armitage to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Armitage in view of Lin.
Regarding claims 11-12:
Armitage in view of Lin discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
However, the embodiment of Figs. 1-2 of Armitage (the embodiment of Armitage used with Lin to reject claim 1) only discloses a single light source. Thus, Armitage in view of Lin fails to disclose “wherein a plurality of light sources are each provided with an identification unit and a communication device is assigned to each identification unit” as recited by claim 11 or “wherein a plurality of light sources are each provided with an identification unit and precisely one communication device is assigned to each of them” as recited by claim 12.
Another embodiment of Armitage discloses “wherein a plurality of light sources are each provided with an identification unit and a communication device is assigned to each identification unit” and wherein a plurality of light sources are each provided with an identification unit and precisely one communication device is assigned to each of them” [see Fig. 4 element 32 and 52 (each of which contains a light source) with each assigned its own identification unit (element 38 and 58, respectively) and each with a communication device (element 34 and 54, respectively). Additionally, Armitage discloses the scope includes modifications between the different embodiments (understood to include combinations between embodiments) [see para 51].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was filed to modify Armitage in view of Lin similarly to the embodiment disclosed by Fig. 4 of Armitage (i.e. thereby reciting claims 11-12) as this is merely a subcombination of combinations disclosed by Armitage.
Regarding claims 13-14,
Armitage in view of Lin discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
However, the embodiment of Figs. 1-2 of Armitage (the embodiment of Armitage used with Lin to reject claim 1) is silent as to all the details of the system. Thus, Armitage in view of Lin fails to disclose “wherein the communication device is connected to an evaluation unit” as recited by claim 13 or “wherein the evaluation unit uses information from the identification unit to control the light source” as recited by claim 14.
Another embodiment of Armitage disclosed in Fig. 3 discloses “wherein the communication device is connected to an evaluation unit” [see Fig. 3 element 40 labelled controller which is an evaluation unit which is connected to element 34 (i.e. the communication device)] and “wherein the evaluation unit uses information from the identification unit to control the light source” [see para 9… in particular “Based on the identifier read by the data reader from the data carrier, the controller retrieves the operational data from its memory and processes the retrieved operational data to configure the lamp system. In this manner, the lamp system may receive and operate lamp assemblies characterized by different electrical specifications. For example, the controller may configure the lamp system by changing cooling conditions for the lamp and/or by adjusting a voltage or current delivered from a power supply of the lamp system to the lamp assembly” which describes the controller (i.e. evaluation unit) uses data from the data carrier (i.e. identification unit) to control parameters of the light] Additionally, Armitage discloses the scope includes modifications between the different embodiments (understood to include combinations between embodiments) [see para 51].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was filed to modify Armitage in view of Lin similarly to the embodiment disclosed by Fig. 3 of Armitage (i.e. thereby reciting claims 13-14) as this is merely a subcombination of combinations disclosed by Armitage.
Independent claim
Regarding claim 15:
Armitage discloses:
A method for irradiating an irradiation object with light [see abstract… “Lamp systems, lamp assemblies, and methods of operating a lamp system are provided”], comprising the steps:
providing at least one light source with an identification unit which contains light source-specific information [see Figs. 1-2 element 18 which is a light source and element 26 which is an identification unit and see para 26… “A data carrier 26 is mounted on the lamp assembly 24, in order to be readable by a data reader (not shown) carried in the lamp head 10.” and abstract… “The data carrier is configured to store an identifier, or operational data, or data representing the number of hours of operation, or data representing the lamp type associated with the lamp assembly, or any combination thereof.”] ;
positioning of the at least one light source in a reflective frame [see Figs. 1-2 element 10 and para 24… “The lamp head 10 may include a reflector (not shown), which includes a reflective surface partially surrounding the lamp 18 for reflecting radiation onto a substrate”], with at least one light source holder, by form-fitting insertion into the light source holder [see Figs. 1-2 elements 20 which are light source holders and para 25… “The lamp assembly 24 includes lamp 18 and end fixtures 20, which are secured to terminal ends 22 of lamp 18.”];
providing a detection field of a communication device in a defined region [see para 25-26…“A data carrier 26 is mounted on the lamp assembly 24, in order to be readable by a data reader (not shown) carried in the lamp head 10.” the space between which the data reader (i.e. a communication device) interacts with the data carrier is at least providing a detection field as claimed. Thus, place where the data carrier is placed on the light source holder is a region as claimed]
positioning the identification unit on at least one light source in such a way that the identification unit is positioned within the detection field by form-fitting insertion into the light source holder [see Fig. 1-2 which show the light source (elements 18 and 22) positioned into light source holder (element 20) and see para 25-26 which describes the identification unit as being positioned within the detection field].
However, Armitage fails to fully disclose “positioning the identification unit on at least one light source in such a way that after rotating the light source about a longitudinal axis of the light source by an angle of between 35 and 160 degrees the identification unit is positioned within the detection field by form-fitting insertion into the light source holder” and fails to disclose “physically locking the light source on the light source holder such that it is impossible to insert and fix the light source in the irradiation device so that the identification unit does not come to rest in the detection region” as recited by claim 15.
Lin discloses in the analogous art of light devices [see abstract… “The present utility model relates to a holder (1) for an LED lighting device (2), wherein the holder (1) comprises a first connection member (3) connected to a power supply and a second connection member (4) connected to the LED lighting device (2)”] a first connection member [see Fig. 1 element 3], second connection member [see Fig. 1 element 4] and latch locking means made of insertion holes and locking latches [see Fig. 1-2 elements 6 and 7 and pg. 7 lines 9-20… “In said embodiment, there are provided locking latches 6 distributed circumferentially on an end surface of the first connection member 3 and locking insertion holes 7 distributed axially on an end surface of the second connec-tion member 4 . Of course, it is worth considering that the locking latches 6 may be disposed on the second connection member 4 and the locking insertion holes 7 may be provided on the first connection member 3 Thus, the locking between first connection member 3 and the second connection member the can be realized in a simple manner.”] that rotates and locks the rotation position between the two connections members and thereby the connected light and holder for the purpose of ensuring the lighting device can rotate relative to the holder to illuminate at a suitable angle [see Figs. 1-2 and pg. 2 lines 5-30 and pg. 3 lines 1-20… “a first connection member connected to a power supply and a second connection member connected to the LED lighting device, wherein the first connection member and the second connection member are rotationally connected, and further comprising a latch locking means for locking or releasing the rotation therebetween. By arranging the first connection member and the second connection member of the holder, it can be ensured that the LED lighting device moving with the second connection member is set to rotate relative to the first connection member and further relative to the holder, such that the orientation of the LED lighting device may be adjusted relative to the holder to achieve illumination at a suitable angle.”]. Lin further discloses the lock latching holes as being set at preset angles and therefore locking at preset angles that extend at consecutively increasing angles understood to range between 0-360 degrees [see Fig. 1 elements 7 and pg. 3 lines 20-31… “The interval angle for the locking insertion holes may be selected to adjust precision according to needs. In a particularly preferred embodiment according to the present utility model, said angle is 15°C. The locking insertion holes may be arranged in a progressively increasing manner or in other suitable manners, for example, the locking insertion holes may be arranged in the order of 2°C-4°C-6°C.”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Armitage by including a first connection member, second connection member and latch locking means that rotates the light and locks the light relative to the frame at a set position similarly to that disclosed by Lin for the purpose of positioning the device to illuminate at a suitable angle.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the time the invention was filed to further modify Armitage in view of Lin by setting the locking means and the connection members so that during the step of positioning after a rotation of an angle of 35 to 160 degrees of Armitage in view of Lin’s light source relative to the holder the identification unit is always positioned within the detection filed because 35-160 degrees is a subset of range of motion 0-360 degrees taught by Armitage in view of Lin (i.e. thereby fully reciting “positioning the identification unit on at least one light source in such a way that after rotating the light source about a longitudinal axis of the light source by an angle of between 35 and 160 degrees the identification unit is positioned within the detection field by form-fitting insertion into the light source holder” and “physically locking the light source on the light source holder such that it is impossible to insert and fix the light source in the irradiation device so that the identification unit does not come to rest in the detection region”)
Regarding claim 16
Armitage in view of Lin discloses:
A computer program product stored on a non-transitory storage medium [see Fig. 3 element 42 and para 31 of Armitage … “usage data is stored in a memory 42 of the controller. Memory 42 may represent random access memory (RAM) devices, as well as any supplemental levels of memory, e.g., cache memories, non-volatile or backup memories (e.g., programmable or flash memories), read-only memories, etc. In addition, memory 42 may be considered to include memory storage physically located elsewhere in controller 40 or lamp system 30, e.g., any cache memory in a processor 44, as well as any storage capacity used as a virtual memory,”] for operation in the irradiation device of claim 1 for irradiating an irradiation object with light [see para 10 of Armitage… “the data carrier contains data representing the type of lamp assembly, such as the specific spectral fill of the lamp. The controller stores operational data in its memory that is correlated with different types of lamp assemblies. The data reader reads the data representing the lamp assembly type from the data carrier and communicates this information to the controller. The controller then retrieves the operational data and configures the lamp system based on the data representing lamp assembly type.” And see rejection to claim 1 above], and which is designed for carrying out the following steps:
a. activating a communication device to generate a detection region [see Fig. 3 of Armitage arrows (detected region) between 34 (i.e. a communication device)];
b. detecting one or more identification unit(s) which contain light source-specific information [see Fig. 3 lines between elements 38 (i.e. identification unit) and 34 and para 10 of Armitage … “The data reader reads the data representing the lamp assembly type from the data carrier and communicates this information to the controller” element 34 is the data reader. Thus, the arrow to element 34 from element 38 (i.e. identification unit) is understood to recite detecting];
c. evaluating and/or storing the light source-specific information in an evaluation unit [see para 43 of Armitage … “The controller 40 stores the appropriate corresponding information to perform the required functions of the lamp system 30” element 40 is an evaluation unit].
Regarding claim 17:
further comprising the step:
a. controlling the communication device and/or an irradiation program and/or at least one irradiation parameter on the basis of the light source-specific information [see para 10 of Armitage … “the data carrier contains data representing the type of lamp assembly, such as the specific spectral fill of the lamp. The controller stores operational data in its memory that is correlated with different types of lamp assemblies. The data reader reads the data representing the lamp assembly type from the data carrier and communicates this information to the controller. The controller then retrieves the operational data and configures the lamp system based on the data representing lamp assembly type.”]
Independent claim
Regarding claim 18
Armitage discloses:
A light source for irradiating an irradiation object with light [see Figs. 1-2 element and para 24… “a lamp assembly 24”], comprising:
an identification unit [see Fig. 1 element 26] which contains light source-specific information [see para 26… “A data carrier 26 is mounted on the lamp assembly 24, in order to be readable by a data reader (not shown) carried in the lamp head 10.” And abstract… “The data carrier is configured to store an identifier, or operational data, or data representing the number of hours of operation, or data representing the lamp type associated with the lamp assembly, or any combination thereof.”],
the identification unit being positioned on the light source in such a way that the identification unit is positioned within a detection field by form-fitting insertion into a light source holder, which field is made possible by a region [see Figs. 1-2 elements 20 which are light source holders and para 25… “The lamp assembly 24 includes lamp 18 and end fixtures 20, which are secured to terminal ends 22 of lamp 18.”]
However, Armitage fails to fully disclose “the identification unit being positioned on the light source in such a way that after rotating the light source about a longitudinal axis of the light source by an angle of between 35 and 160 degrees the identification unit is positioned within a detection field by form-fitting insertion into a light source holder, which field is made possible by a region” and fails to disclose “wherein physical locks are provided on the light source or on the light source holder, which makes it impossible to insert and fix the light source in the irradiation device so that the identification unit does not come to rest in the detection region.” as recited by claim 18
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Armitage by including a first connection member, second connection member and latch locking means that rotates the light and locks the light relative to the frame at a set position similarly to that disclosed by Lin for the purpose of positioning the device to illuminate at a suitable angle.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the time the invention was filed to further modify Armitage in view of Lin by setting the locking means and the connection members so that after a rotation of an angle of 35 to 160 degrees of Armitage in view of Lin’s light source relative to the holder so that identification unit is always positioned within the detection filed because 35-160 degrees is a subset of range of motion 0-360 degrees taught by Armitage in view of Lin (i.e. thereby reciting “the identification unit being positioned on the light source in such a way that after rotating the light source about a longitudinal axis of the light source by an angle of between 35 and 160 degrees the identification unit is positioned within a detection field by form-fitting insertion into a light source holder, which field is made possible by a region” and “wherein physical locks are provided on the light source or on the light source holder, which makes it impossible to insert and fix the light source in the irradiation device so that the identification unit does not come to rest in the detection region.” as claimed).
Claim(s) 3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armitage in view of Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Altshuler et al (US 20040193236) hereafter known as Altshuler.
Regarding claim 3
Armitage discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above and a frame that defines an irradiation direction [see para 24 of Armitage… “The lamp head 10 may include a reflector (not shown), which includes a reflective surface partially surrounding the lamp 18 for reflecting radiation onto a substrate.”]
However, Armitage in view of Lin is silent as to the material of the frame. Thus, Armitage in view of Lin fails to disclose “wherein the fame is metallic”.
Altshuler discloses in the analogous art of light emitting apparatuses that direct light to an object [see para 2… “The present invention relates to methods and apparatus for treating the oral cavity, including light emitting oral appliances”] that using a metal frame helps provide heat transfer from a light source to an external environment [see para 65… “a frame 38 that can protect the internal components, and can be optionally formed of a thermally conductive material, such as, metal, ceramic, sapphire, high thermoconductive composite materials such as plastic with carbon fiber, to provide heat transfer from the light source 18 to an external environment.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Armitage in view of Lin by using a frame made of metal similarly to that disclosed by Altshuler (i.e. frame is metallic) because this provides a frame with high thermal conductivity which would help remove heat from the light sources thereby preventing the light sources are overheating.
Regarding claim 20
Armitage in view of Lin discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Armitage in view of Lin discloses the region consists of ceramic material [see para 25 of Armitage… “each end fixture 20 is made of a ceramic material” which discloses element 20 (i.e. the region) as being made of a ceramic]. Thus, Armitage in view of Lin fails to disclose “wherein the region consists of a plastic” as recited by claim 20.
Altshuler discloses in the analogous art of light emitting apparatuses that direct light to an object [see para 2… “The present invention relates to methods and apparatus for treating the oral cavity, including light emitting oral appliances”] that using plastic helps provide heat transfer from a light source to an external environment [see para 65… “a frame 38 that can protect the internal components, and can be optionally formed of a thermally conductive material, such as, metal, ceramic, sapphire, high thermoconductive composite materials such as plastic with carbon fiber, to provide heat transfer from the light source 18 to an external environment.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Armitage in view of Lin by modifying the region to be made of plastic similarly to that disclosed by Altshuler (i.e. wherein the region consists of a plastic) because this provides a surrounding structure to the light sources with high thermal conductivity which would help remove heat from the light sources thereby preventing the light sources are overheating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796