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 .
Specification
The disclosure should be carefully reviewed to ensure that any and all grammatical, idiomatic, and spelling or other minor errors are corrected.
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 decorative features on the diffuser must be shown or the features canceled from claim 4. 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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 7, line 2: The word “strand” appears to be a typographical error. It is assumed the applicant means to claim “stand”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 5, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choksi et al. (2013/0265766).
With respect to claim 1, Choksi discloses a lighting device [10] comprising:
a base [12] with a telescoping base assembly [40, 42] connected to a telescoping upper assembly [44] with an adjustable telescoping hardware [46], and
the telescoping upper assembly [44] is further attached to an upper stand assembly [68] wherein the upper stand assembly [68] is connected to a lighting assembly [20] with a swivel head assembly [paragraphs 00007, 0055-0056]; and
the lighting assembly [20] configured with LEDs [paragraph 0067] and capable of freely rotating [paragraphs 0055-0056].
Choksi does not disclose the lighting assembly further comprises a control knob to adjust total lumen output with a dimmer control. Dimmers to control the light output level of a lighting device are well known in the art. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the device of Choksi to have a control knob to adjust total lumen output with a dimmer control to allow the user to control the light output level of the lighting device to achieve a desired light output.
With respect to claim 5, Choksi discloses the base has feet [30].
With respect to claim 6, Choksi does not disclose the upper stand assembly is capable of height adjustment between 30- 60 inches. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the device of Choksi to allow the stand to adjust between 30-60 inches if such a modification would allow the light produced to be outputted at a desirable height. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 10, Choksi discloses his device is useful for both construction and home improvement projects but does not explicitly disclose the lighting assembly is configured for both indoor or outdoor use. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the device of Choksi to be weather proof so the lighting assembly is configured for both indoor or outdoor use to allow the device to be used in more environments making the device more useful and desirable.
Claims 2-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Choksi et al. (2013/0265766) in view of Aurongzeb et al. (2011/0249425).
With respect to claim 2, Choksi discloses the lighting assembly is comprised of a top light with LEDs [paragraph 0067] but does not disclose the claimed details of the lighting assembly. Aurongzeb, in a similar task light, discloses the lighting assembly [300] is comprised of a top light [302; figures 1 and 18-20] with LEDs [304, 306, 308 of figure 18; paragraph 0001], a light assembly left side assembly [314] and a light assembly right side that create a distance between a light diffuser [312] and the top light [302] to create a more efficient light diffuser [paragraph 0050]. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a lighting assembly such as that disclose by Aurongzeb in the device of Choksi to produce a more desirable light output which is efficient.
With respect to claim 3, Choksi does not disclose the claimed details of the lighting assembly. Aurongzeb, in a similar task light, discloses the top light is arc shaped [figure 3] and discloses the illuminating panel may be 18” long and 4” wide [paragraph 0040] and have a radius of curvature of 5” [paragraph 0004] but does not disclose the claimed length and height of the arch. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the lighting assembly of the device of Choksi modified by Aurongzeb so the top light is arch shaped with a length of twenty-four inches and a height of twelve inches if such would produce a more desirable lighting device and emit light in a more desirable pattern. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 4, Choksi does not disclose the claimed details of the lighting assembly. Aurongzeb, in a similar task light, discloses a diffuser but does not disclose the claimed decorative features. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the device of Choksi modified by Aurongzeb so the diffuser has decorative features to increase the aesthetic appeal of the device.
With respect to claim 8, neither Choksi nor Auronogzeb disclose the top light LEDs produce between 600 - 1200 lumen. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided top light LEDs produce between 600 - 1200 lumen, based on routine experimentation and in view of the teachings of Choksi modified by Auronogzeb as when general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Choksi discloses a top light can produce a suitable range of lumens and since Choksi discloses 1500 lumens, allowing for dimming and further that any suitable range can be used [paragraph 0060-0061].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choksi et al. (2013/0265766) in view of Lio (2108/0266666).
With respect to claim 7, Choksi does not disclose the claimed pivot point. Lio in a similar task light, discloses the telescoping top assembly is connected to the upper stand assembly with a pivot point [30] to allow greater mobility of the lighting device. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the lighting assembly of the device of Choksi so the telescoping top assembly is connected to the upper stand assembly with a pivot point, as taught by Lio, to allow greater mobility of the lighting device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choksi et al. (2013/0265766) in view of Aurongzeb et al. (2011/0249425) and further in view of Huang (2015/0054412).
With respect to claim 9, Neither Choksi nor Aurongzeb disclose the top light LEDs are configured to change color between 400-700 nanometer. Huang in a similar lighting device, discloses the top light LEDs are configured to change color between 400-700 nanometer [paragraph 0038]. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the lighting assembly of the device of Choksi modified by Aruongzeb so the top light LEDs are configured to change color between 400-700 nanometer to produce a more desirable light output to create less eye strain on the user.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rotter (4,803,606) discloses a shop lamp [figures 2-8];
Takes (2015/0062877) discloses an illuminated makeup mirror [figure 1] with a dimmer [see paragraph 0026];
Brindle (2017/0261188) discloses an illuminated makeup mirror [figures 1-5]; and
Rojas (2018/0054232) discloses an illuminated shaving mirror having a telescopic base [figures 1-5].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA TSO whose telephone number is (571)272-2385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30a-4:00p.
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.
/LAURA K TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875