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 .
Status of Submission
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on September 24, 2025 which has been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
Patent claims 1-10 are subject to examination. Patent claims 1, 5 and 8-9 have been amended. The following new and reiterated grounds of rejection are set forth:
Related Proceedings
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,907,814 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Objections to Amendments — Formalities
The claim amendments filed on May 7, 2025 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2), (d) and (g). Amended claims must show all changes made relative to the patent claims, with omitted text enclosed in single brackets, and added text underlined. New claims must be underlined in their entirety.
The claim amendments are improper because claim 1 contains double brackets indicate omitted text. See line 13 of the claim wherein the word “and” is omitted using double brackets.
Applicant is required to place the amendments into compliance with 37 CFR 1.173(a)-(g) in response to this Office action.
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.
GROUND 1: Claim 5 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 5 recites the limitation "the three openings" in line 18 of the claim. 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.
GROUND 2: Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent App. Pub. 2011/0298351 to Han.
In regard to claim 1, Han discloses a lighting structure, including: a base, including a seat portion 30 and a lamp cap 10, the seat portion having a connecting surface and a working surface opposite to each other in a reference axial direction of the base, the lamp cap being disposed on the connecting surface (See annotated Figure);
PNG
media_image1.png
386
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least two moving mechanisms, each of the moving mechanisms including a swinging member 40 and a rotating member 74, a number of at least two swinging members being equal to a number of at least two rotating members, each of the at least two swinging members being disposed on the seat portion and swingable between a first position and a second position relative to the seat portion about a swinging axis, each of the at least two rotating members being disposed on one of the at least two swinging members and rotatable about a rotation axis, each said swinging axis being transverse to the reference axial direction, each said rotation axis being transverse to at least one said swinging axis (see Figs. 2-3 and 6 and paras 0053-0058, 0066-0073); and at least two elongate lighting assemblies 62 each disposed on one of the at least two rotating members and extending along one said rotation axis (see paras 0054-0055); wherein when the at least two swinging members are located in the first position, the at least two elongate lighting assemblies protrude beyond the connecting surface; and when the at least two swinging members are located in the second position, the at least two elongate lighting assemblies protrude beyond the working surface (See Fig. 3 and paras 0056-0057); and wherein each of the at least two swinging members 40 further includes a main body 48 and a rotating column 52 extending along one said rotation axis and protruding from one said main body (See Figs. 5-6, 8), where one of the at least two rotating members 74 is rotatably sleeved with said rotating column such that the one of the at least two rotating members rotates relative to said rotating column (See paras 0075-0078).
PNG
media_image2.png
633
527
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 6, Han discloses a lighting structure, wherein the number of the at least two swinging members is even (See Figs. 1-2).
In regard to claim 7, Han discloses a lighting structure, wherein the at least two swinging members are symmetrically arranged centering on the lamp cap (see Figs. 1-2).
GROUND 3: Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent App. Pub. 2011/0298351 to Han in view of one of US Patent App. Pub. 2009/0219720 to Reed (“Reed”) or US Patent App. Pub. 2016/0116136 to Bernard et al. (“Bernard”).
In regard to claim 2, Han discloses a lighting structure wherein lighting assemblies 62 have a lamp housing 70 and LED board 64, the housing positioned on the rotating members 74. Light comes out one side (emitting side) and not the other (assembling side). The LEDs face towards the light emitting side. It is not clear how the board is retained in the assembly, so there are not clearly disclosed positioning members as claimed.
Reed Fig. 8 shows that in a lighting assembly having an elongated LED board, there may be a plurality of positioning members defining a groove 808 in which an LED light board 802 is disposed. [0051]-[0052]. It would have been obvious to use such a configuration as a simple means of holding the board in place.
Alternatively, Bernard likewise shows in Fig. 4-5 a lighting assembly having an elongated LED board 110, the assembly having positioning members defining a groove where the board is disposed. [0056]. It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art to use such a groove with positioning members as it provides for easy replacement or maintenance of the light board or the LEDs thereon, as taught by Bernard.
GROUND 4: Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent App. Pub. 2011/0298351 to Han in view of one of US Patent App. Pub. 2009/0219720 to Reed or US Patent App. Pub. 2016/0116136 to Bernard et al. and further in view of US Patent App. Pub. 2023/0240205 to Feng et al.
In regard to claim 3, Han discloses a lighting structure (see rejections above) but fail to disclose or show the lamp housing having a hooked member hooked by a hook member. Feng teaches a similar lighting device with pivoting elongate lamp arms having the ends attached by a wire 140 on a hook (see para 0031, Fig. 1, 6C) It would have been obvious to include such a wire as it secures the arm and supports some of the weight, as taught by Feng.
Feng is somewhat the opposite, as the claim would have a hooked member on the lamp housing hooked by a hook member, while Feng has a hook member on the lamp housing hooking a hooked member on the wire. See Feng Fig. 7. It is apparent that whether the hook is on one side or the other is merely an obvious variant of the other. There is nothing special about a hook being on one side or the other, the ‘814 patent gives no reason why one would be advantageous over the other, and both do the very same thing in exactly the same way. This is an obvious reversal of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.A.
In regard to claim 4, Han discloses a lighting structure (see rejections above) wherein the lamp arms have end caps 79. It is apparent that they block the inner space from external space. It is not disclosed that the hooked member is sleeved with this end cap but this is where it would be in the device when modified in view of Feng, as Feng shows the attachment is at the end of the housing.
GROUND 5: Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent App. Pub. 2011/0298351 to Han in view of US 9,006,963 to Al-Saqabi.
In regard to claim 8, Han discloses a lighting structure wherein the seat portion includes at least two swinging grooves, the at least two swinging members are swingably received within the at least two swinging grooves, each of the at least two swinging grooves includes a first groove wall and two second groove walls which extend face to face and perpendicularly relative to one said swinging axis from two sides of the first groove wall (See Figs. 5-6), each said second groove wall has a through hole 34 disposed therethrough and open toward an extending direction of one said swinging axis, each of the at least two swinging members includes a main body rotatably connected with one of the at least two rotating members 74, via shaft 52 (see Fig. 6 and para 0077), and when one of the at least two swinging members is located in the first position or the second position, one of two abutting surfaces of one said main body is abutted against one said first groove wall (See Fig. 3). Han and Chou are silent with respect to two protruding portions each protruding from the main body and rotatably inserted within one said through hole. As illustrated in, Figs. 5-6, the main body is held into the groove via a screw in the through hole, not via protrusions from the main body being inserted in the through holes. However, it was known for a rotation point to be like that claimed. Al-Saqabi Fig. 2 shows a rotation point where protrusions 21a,21b protrude from a main body and are rotatably inserted in a through hole 20. It would have been obvious to use this type of rotation configuration as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. Han is like the claimed device with a different rotation mechanism, but Al-Saqabi has this type of rotation mechanism. It would have been obvious to substitute one for the other and the results would have been predictable. The overall device operates the same, as the rotation does not change, it just rotates in a different way. One can see in Al-Saqabi just how the rotation would operate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments filed September 24 ,2025, have been fully considered and will be addressed as follows with respect to the previously presented claim interpretations and GROUNDS 1-4:
Improper amendments:
The claim amendments filed on 9/24/25 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2), (d) and (g). Amended claims must show all changes made relative to the patent claims, with omitted text enclosed in single brackets, and added text underlined. The objection is maintained.
GROUND 1 (35 USC § 103 rejections in view of Han and Chou.):
In view of the amendments filed 9/24/25 the rejection of claims 1 and 6-7 as being unpatentable over by Han and Chou is withdrawn and new GROUND 2 is applied above.
Applicant submits, claim 1 has been amended to include features of claim 5 and 9, wherein claims 5 and 9 were previously indicated as allowable. Examiner disagrees, as claims 5 and 9-10 were previously indicated as being allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The Applicant failed to include the limitations of claims 5 and 9-10 in their entirety. Rather, amended claim 1 merely includes selected portions of claims 5 and 9, reciting in part “each of the at least two swinging members further includes a main body and a rotating column extending along one said rotation axis and protruding from one said main body, where one of the at least two rotating members is rotatably sleeved with said rotating column such that the one of the at least two rotating members rotates relative to said rotating column”. Thus claim 1 fails to include the totality of claim 5 (or claim 9 and intervening claim 8) which resulted in the previous indication of allowable subject matter. Thus, in view of the amendment to original patent claim 1, new GROUND 2 is applied to claims 1 and 6-7.
GROUNDS 2-4 (35 USC § 103 rejections in view of Han and Chou, Reed Bernard, Feng and Al-Saqabi):
Applicant has not individually argued the rejections presented in GROUNDS 2-4, but rather relies upon the amendments to independent claim 1, as reasons for withdrawal of the rejections. Examiner disagrees in view of the discussion above under GROUND 1. New GROUNDS 3-5 are now applied, in view of Chou no longer being required to reject independent claim 1 as amended.
It is noted, new GROUND 1 is also presented above, in view of the amendments filed 9/24/25.
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g). In addition, for reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, when any substantive amendment is filed in the reissue application, which amendment otherwise places the reissue application in condition for allowance, a supplemental oath/declaration will be required. See MPEP § 1414.01.
The provisions of 37 CFR 1.173(b)(1), (d), (f) and (g) govern amendments to the specification (other than the claims) in reissue applications. The following guidance is provided as to the procedure for amending the specification:
a) All amendments which include deletions or additions must be made by submission of the entire text of each added or rewritten paragraph containing the bracketing and/or underlining required by 37 CFR 1.173(d).
b) An entire paragraph of specification text may be deleted by a statement deleting the paragraph without presentation of the text of the paragraph.
c) Applicant must indicate the precise point where each amendment is made.
d) All bracketing and underlining is made in comparison to the original patent, not in comparison to any prior amendment in the reissue application. Thus, all paragraphs which are newly added to the specification of the original patent must be submitted as completely underlined each time they are re-submitted in the reissue application.
The provisions of 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2), (c)-(e) and (g) govern amendments to the claims in reissue applications. The following guidance is provided as to the procedure for amending the claims:
a) For each claim that is being amended, the entire text of the claim must be presented with the bracketing and/or underlining required by 37 CFR 1.173(d).
b) For each new claim added to the reissue, the entire text of the added claim must be presented completely underlined.
c) A patent claim should be canceled by a direction to cancel that claim. There is no need to present the patent claim surrounded by brackets.
d) A new claim (previously added in the reissue) should be canceled by a direction to cancel that claim.
e) Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2), each claim that is amended or added should include the appropriate status indicator following the claim number, e.g., “(amended)”, “(twice amended)”, “(new)”, and “(canceled)”.
f) Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(c), each amendment submitted must set forth the status of all patent claims and all added claims as of the date of the submission. The status to be set forth is whether the claim is pending or canceled.
g) Also pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(c), each claim amendment must be accompanied by an explanation of the support in the patent’s disclosure for all changes made in the claim(s), whether insertions or deletions.
h) Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(e), original patent claims are never to be renumbered. A patent claim retains its number even if it is canceled in the reissue proceeding, and the numbering of any added claims must begin after the last original patent claim.
i) Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(g), all bracketing and underlining is made in comparison to the original patent, not in comparison to any prior amendment in the reissue application.
The provisions of 37 CFR 1.173(b)(3) govern amendments to the drawings in reissue applications. The following guidance is provided as to the procedure for amending drawings:
a) Amending the original or printed patent drawing sheets by physically changing or altering them is not permitted.
b) Where a change to the drawings is desired, applicant must submit a replacement sheet for each sheet of drawings containing a figure to be revised. Any replacement sheet must comply with 37 CFR 1.84 and include all of the figures appearing on the original version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each figure that is amended must be identified by placing the word “Amended” at the bottom of that figure. Any added figure must be identified as “New”. In the event that a figure is canceled, the figure must be identified as “Canceled” and also surrounded by brackets.
c) All changes to the figure(s) must be explained, in detail, beginning on a separate sheet which accompanies the papers including the amendment to the drawings.
d) If desired, applicant may include a marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made. Such a marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Marked-up Drawings”, and it must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings.
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM--3PM.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/WILLIAM V GILBERT/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993