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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 January 2026 has been entered.
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 “…three screw holes equidistantly spaced around a circumference of the lamp body…,” as recited in claim 28, and the “…wherein the elastic element abuts the inner face…,” as recited in claim 22, and the “…wherein the elastic element abuts the inner face…,” as recited in claim 24, and the “…the plurality of screw holes is greater than the plurality of screws …,” as recited in claim 30, 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 § 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 22 and 24 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 22 and 24, the limitation recites: “…wherein the elastic element abuts the inner face…,” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, there is no mention of the elastic element abutting or otherwise contacting the claimed inner face. To that extent, there is also no mention in the disclosure of an inner face, in general. The only mention of abutment is by a second axial end face as follows: “…the 0-ring 10 may be fixedly arranged on the lamp body 3 and may abut against a second axial end surface of the attachment ring 4 (the axial end surface opposite the axial end face of the attachment ring 3 that has the wave troughs 8 and wave crests 9 formed thereon)…” Clarification from the Applicant is requested and appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-3, 7-9, 13-15, 20-25, and 27-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (JP 2018078086 A), in view of Cha (KR 20160101380 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ota teaches or suggests a light-emitting diode (LED) retrofit lamp (Figs. 1-10) comprising: a lamp body (1) having an axial length (as shown in Figs. 1-10) with a first end (3) and a second end (1); an attachment ring (5, 6) slidably coupled to, and adjustably rotatable around, the lamp body (as shown in Figs. 1-10 and as noted in the corresponding description), wherein the attachment ring (5, 7) has an inner face positioned proximate the first end (as shown in Figs. 1-10) and an outer face oriented towards the second end (as shown in Figs. 1-10) and having a wavelike axial end face (the axial end face having 6 thereon, as shown in Figs. 1-10) comprising a plurality of wave troughs (6) and a plurality of wave crests (the portions between 6) positioned circumferentially around (as shown in Figs. 1-10), and oriented parallel to, the axial length of the lamp body (as shown in Figs. 1-10), wherein each of the plurality of wave troughs is positioned between two of the plurality of wave crests (as shown in Figs. 1-10); an elastic element (9) coupled to the lamp body (1) and positioned between the first end and the inner face (during use, 9 is pressed between 1 to bias 5, 6 against 4); an LED light source (on 2, as noted in the corresponding description) coupled to the lamp body proximate the second end (as shown in Figs. 1-10); a plurality of holes (4’) positioned in the lamp body (1) at a position along the axial length which aligns with one or more of the plurality of wave troughs (as shown in Figs. 1-10); and a pin (4), disposed through at least one of the plurality of holes in the lamp body (as shown in Figs. 1-10) and engaged with at least one of the wave troughs to fix an angular position of the attachment ring (as shown in Figs. 1-10 and as noted in the corresponding description).
Ota does not explicitly teach that said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring.
Cha teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-12) said plurality of holes (41b) are a plurality of screw holes (41b), said pin is a plurality of screws (44) used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring (42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ota and incorporated the teachings of said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring, such as taught or suggested by Cha, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of increasing or otherwise improving the performance and/or longevity of the device (i.e., by providing a fastener which further prevents unintentional dislodgement from the device during use, e.g., due to vibrations or other environmental or operational influences).
Regarding claim 2, Ota teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-10) the pin (4) securely fixes the attachment ring in one of a plurality of predetermined angular positions relative to the lamp body (1) via at least one of the wave troughs and the plurality of holes (as shown in Figs. 1-10).
Ota does not explicitly teach that said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring.
Cha teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-12) said plurality of holes (41b) are a plurality of screw holes (41b), said pin is a plurality of screws (44) used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring (42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ota and incorporated the teachings of said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring, such as taught or suggested by Cha, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of increasing or otherwise improving the performance and/or longevity of the device (i.e., by providing a fastener which further prevents unintentional dislodgement from the device during use, e.g., due to vibrations or other environmental or operational influences).
Regarding claim 3, Ota teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-10) the plurality of predetermined angular positions of the attachment ring (5, 6) relative to the lamp body (1) is fixed by the pin (4).
Ota does not explicitly teach that said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring, said fixing by the plurality of screws is through form-locking.
Cha teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-12) said plurality of holes (41b) are a plurality of screw holes (41b), said pin is a plurality of screws (44) used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring (42), said fixing by the plurality of screws is through form-locking (threading of 42 is coupled to corresponding threading of 44, thus fixing by form locking).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ota and incorporated the teachings of said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring, said fixing by the plurality of screws is through form-locking, such as taught or suggested by Cha, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of increasing or otherwise improving the performance and/or longevity of the device (i.e., by providing a fastener which further prevents unintentional dislodgement from the device during use, e.g., due to vibrations or other environmental or operational influences).
Regarding claim 7, Ota teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-10) the attachment ring (5, 6) is biased against the pin (4) by the elastic element (9).
Ota does not explicitly teach that said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring.
Cha teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-12) said plurality of holes (41b) are a plurality of screw holes (41b), said pin is a plurality of screws (44) used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring (42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ota and incorporated the teachings of said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring, such as taught or suggested by Cha, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of increasing or otherwise improving the performance and/or longevity of the device (i.e., by providing a fastener which further prevents unintentional dislodgement from the device during use, e.g., due to vibrations or other environmental or operational influences).
Regarding claim 8, Ota teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-10) the elastic element (9) is an O-ring (as shown in Figs. 1-10 and as noted in the corresponding description: “…the adjustment pin 4 is pressed against the slit 7 integrated with the base engaging piece 5 by urging by the O-ring 9 made of an elastic member, thereby stabilizing the lamp loaded with the LED against the headlamp body…”).
Regarding claim 9, Ota does not explicitly teach that the attachment ring comprises a bayonet coupling for attachment to a lamp holder.
Cha teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-12) the attachment ring (42) comprises a bayonet coupling (42a) for attachment to a lamp holder (as noted in the corresponding description, e.g.: “…the vehicle body fixing body 42 while being formed into a tube form fixed to the lamp body 41 is inserted and is projected outward to form a fixing protrusion (42a) applied to the vehicle body…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ota and incorporated the teachings of the attachment ring comprises a bayonet coupling for attachment to a lamp holder, such as taught or suggested by Cha, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of increasing or otherwise improving the marketability and/or utility of the device (i.e., by providing a feature to attached the device to conventional bayonet fittings of motor vehicles).
Regarding claim 13, Ota teaches or suggests an automotive lighting system (Figs. 1-10) comprising: a vehicle headlamp (Figs. 1-10) comprising a lamp holder (the lamp holder to which the device of Figs. 1-10 is fitted on an automobile headlamp, as noted in the corresponding description); and an LED retrofit lamp comprising: a lamp body (1) having an axial length (as shown in Figs. 1-10) with a first end (3) and a second end (1); an attachment ring (5, 6) slidably coupled to, and adjustably rotatable around, the lamp body (as shown in Figs. 1-10 and as noted in the corresponding description), wherein the attachment ring (5, 6) has an inner face positioned proximate the first end (as shown in Figs. 1-10) and an outer face oriented towards the second end (as shown in Figs. 1-10) and having a wavelike axial end face (the portion having 6 thereon forms a wavelike axial end face, as shown in Figs. 1-10) comprising a plurality of wave troughs (6) and a plurality of wave crests positioned circumferentially around (as shown in Figs. 1-10), and oriented parallel to, the axial length of the lamp body (as shown in Figs. 1-10), wherein each of the plurality of wave troughs is positioned between two of the plurality of wave crests (as shown in Figs. 1-10), an elastic element (9) coupled to the lamp body (1) and positioned between the first end and the inner face of the attachment ring (during use, 9 is positioned between said first end and said inner face so as to bias 5, 6 into 4, as noted in the corresponding description), an LED light source (on 2, as noted in the corresponding description) coupled to the lamp body (1) proximate the second end (as shown in Figs. 1-10) and a pin (4), disposed through at least one of a plurality of holes (4’) in the lamp body (1) and engaged with at least one of the wave troughs to fix an angular position of the attachment ring (as shown in Figs. 1-10 and as noted in the corresponding description), the LED retrofit lamp being attached to the lamp holder of the vehicle headlamp at least via the attachment ring (as noted in the corresponding description: “…a headlamp body (not shown) and a headlamp in which a lamp loaded with an LED is fitted and locked by a base engaging piece 5…”).
Ota does not explicitly teach that said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring.
Cha teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-12) said plurality of holes (41b) are a plurality of screw holes (41b), said pin is a plurality of screws (44) used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring (42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ota and incorporated the teachings of said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring, such as taught or suggested by Cha, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of increasing or otherwise improving the performance and/or longevity of the device (i.e., by providing a fastener which further prevents unintentional dislodgement from the device during use, e.g., due to vibrations or other environmental or operational influences).
Regarding claim 14, Ota teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-10) the pin (4) securely fixes the attachment ring in one of a plurality of predetermined angular positions relative to the lamp body (1) via at least one of the wave troughs and the plurality of holes (as shown in Figs. 1-10).
Ota does not explicitly teach that said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring.
Cha teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-12) said plurality of holes (41b) are a plurality of screw holes (41b), said pin is a plurality of screws (44) used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring (42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ota and incorporated the teachings of said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring, such as taught or suggested by Cha, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of increasing or otherwise improving the performance and/or longevity of the device (i.e., by providing a fastener which further prevents unintentional dislodgement from the device during use, e.g., due to vibrations or other environmental or operational influences).
Regarding claim 15, Ota teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-10) the plurality of predetermined angular positions of the attachment ring (5, 6) relative to the lamp body (1) is fixed by the pin (4).
Ota does not explicitly teach that said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring, said fixing by the plurality of screws is through form-locking.
Cha teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-12) said plurality of holes (41b) are a plurality of screw holes (41b), said pin is a plurality of screws (44) used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring (42), said fixing by the plurality of screws is through form-locking (threading of 42 is coupled to corresponding threading of 44, thus fixing by form locking).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ota and incorporated the teachings of said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring, said fixing by the plurality of screws is through form-locking, such as taught or suggested by Cha, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of increasing or otherwise improving the performance and/or longevity of the device (i.e., by providing a fastener which further prevents unintentional dislodgement from the device during use, e.g., due to vibrations or other environmental or operational influences).
Regarding claim 20, Ota teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-10) the attachment ring (5, 6) is biased against the pin (4) by the elastic element (9).
Ota does not explicitly teach that said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring.
Cha teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-12) said plurality of holes (41b) are a plurality of screw holes (41b), said pin is a plurality of screws (44) used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring (42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ota and incorporated the teachings of said plurality of holes are a plurality of screw holes, said pin is a plurality of screws used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring, such as taught or suggested by Cha, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of increasing or otherwise improving the performance and/or longevity of the device (i.e., by providing a fastener which further prevents unintentional dislodgement from the device during use, e.g., due to vibrations or other environmental or operational influences).
Regarding claim 21, Ota does not explicitly teach that the plurality of wave troughs are unevenly spaced.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ota and formed the wave troughs with uneven spacing along the first wavelike axial end face, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to reduce the complexity in assembling the device (i.e. by shaping or otherwise pre-fitting the troughs to the lamp bodies or vehicles to which they are installed), and/or providing a feature to prevent incorrect alignment of the device within the vehicle headlamp (i.e., by providing a wave trough arrangement that prevents incorrect positioning).
Regarding claim 22, Ota teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-10) the elastic element (9) abuts the inner face (for an inner face including the lower portion of 5, as noted in the corresponding description, e.g.: “…The base 5 is sandwiched by the adjusting pin 4 of the heat conducting rod 1 and the urging force of the elastic member 9. If you want to rotate the heat conducting rod, pull the base backward against the biasing force of the elastic member, disengage the adjustment pin from the unevenness of the adjustment seat, rotate it, and release the base. The adjustment can be freely performed by engaging the unevenness of the other adjustment base…”).
Regarding claim 23, Ota does not explicitly teach that the plurality of wave troughs are unevenly spaced.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ota and formed the wave troughs with uneven spacing along the first wavelike axial end face, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to reduce the complexity in assembling the device (i.e. by shaping or otherwise pre-fitting the troughs to the lamp bodies or vehicles to which they are installed), and/or providing a feature to prevent incorrect alignment of the device within the vehicle headlamp (i.e., by providing a wave trough arrangement that prevents incorrect positioning).
Regarding claim 24, Ota teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-10) the elastic element (9) abuts the inner face (for an inner face including the lower portion of 5, as noted in the corresponding description, e.g.: “…The base 5 is sandwiched by the adjusting pin 4 of the heat conducting rod 1 and the urging force of the elastic member 9. If you want to rotate the heat conducting rod, pull the base backward against the biasing force of the elastic member, disengage the adjustment pin from the unevenness of the adjustment seat, rotate it, and release the base. The adjustment can be freely performed by engaging the unevenness of the other adjustment base…”).
Regarding claim 25, the combined teachings of Ota and Cha teach or suggest, as modified in claim 1 above) the plurality of screw holes comprises an integer number of screw holes equal to an integer number of the plurality of wave troughs (i.e., modifying Ota in view of the cited teachings of Cha results in an integer number of screw holes equal to an integer number of the plurality of wave troughs, as modified in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 27, the combined teachings of Ota and Cha teach or suggest, as modified in claim 13 above) the plurality of screw holes comprises an integer number of screw holes equal to an integer number of the plurality of wave troughs (i.e., modifying Ota in view of the cited teachings of Cha results in an integer number of screw holes equal to an integer number of the plurality of wave troughs, as modified in claim 13 above).
Regarding claim 28, the combined teachings of Ota and Cha teach or suggest, as modified in claim 1 above) the plurality of screw holes is two or three screw holes equidistantly spaced around a circumference of the lamp body (i.e., modifying Ota in view of the cited teachings of Cha results in two screw holes equidistantly spaced around a circumference of the lamp body).
Regarding claim 29, Ota teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-10) the LED light source comprises a plurality of individual LEDs (as noted in the corresponding description, e.g.: “…reference numeral 2 denotes a plate-shaped intermediate portion in which one or two LEDs are loaded on both surfaces at substantially the center…”).
Regarding claim 30, neither Ota nor Cha explicitly teach that the plurality of screw holes is greater than the plurality of screws.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ota and formed the body with the plurality of screw holes being greater than the plurality of screws, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to increase the utility and/or marketability of the device (i.e., by providing the device with numerous screw holes to allow for different arrangements to mount to different attachments of varying automobiles models or makes).
Regarding claim 31, Ota teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-10) each wave crest is closer to the second end than each wave trough (as shown in Figs. 1-10).
Regarding claim 32, the combined teachings of Ota and Cha teach or suggest, as modified in claim 1 above, the plurality of screws create a form-locked join between the lamp body and at least one wave trough of the attachment ring which prevents rotational movement of the attachment ring during installation of the LED retrofit lamp (i.e., modifying Ota and utilizing screws in place of the pin results in creating a form-locked join between the lamp body and at least one wave trough of the attachment ring which prevents rotational movement of the attachment ring during installation of the LED retrofit lamp, via biasing of the elastic element 9).
Regarding claim 33, the combined teachings of Ota and Cha teach or suggest, as modified in claim 1 above, the elastic element (9 of Ota) increases the strength of the form-locked join (i.e., modifying Ota and utilizing screws in place of the pin results in creating a form-locked join between the lamp body and at least one wave trough of the attachment ring which prevents rotational movement of the attachment ring during installation of the LED retrofit lamp, via biasing of the elastic element 9).
Regarding claim 34, the combined teachings of Ota and Cha teach or suggest, as modified in claim 1 above, the plurality of screws includes two screws distributed on opposite circumferential sides of the lamp body (i.e., modifying the device of Ota for two screws arranged on opposite circumferential sides of the body to replace the two ends of the pin of Ota positioned at two opposite circumferential sides of the lamp body result in the plurality of screws includes two screws distributed on opposite circumferential sides of the lamp body).
Regarding claim 35, the combined teachings of Ota and Cha teach or suggest, as modified in claim 1 above, the plurality of screws includes two screws distributed on opposite circumferential sides of the lamp body (i.e., modifying the device of Ota for two screws arranged on opposite circumferential sides of the body to replace the two ends of the pin of Ota positioned at two opposite circumferential sides of the lamp body result in the plurality of screws includes two screws distributed on opposite circumferential sides of the lamp body).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota, in view of Cha, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ohshio (GB 2,254,136 A).
Regarding claim 10, Ota does not explicitly teach that the attachment ring is formed from a material comprising one or more of Polyphenylene Sulfide (PPS), Polyvinyl Toluene (PVT), Polyamide 6,6 (PA66), Polyamide 4,6 (PA46), Liquid Crystal Polymer (LCP), Polyether Ether Ketone (PEEK), Polyphthalamide (PPA), or a resin grade.
Ohshio teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-3) the attachment ring (31) is formed from a material comprising one or more of Polyphenylene Sulfide (PPS), Polyvinyl Toluene (PVT), Polyamide 6,6 (PA66), Polyamide 4,6 (PA46), Liquid Crystal Polymer (LCP), Polyether Ether Ketone (PEEK), Polyphthalamide (PPA), or a resin grade (31 is formed of PPS, i.e. “…the insulating base 31 is formed of synthetic resin such as PPS, for example and molded to be a disc shape…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ota and incorporated the teachings of the attachment ring is formed from a material comprising one or more of Polyphenylene Sulfide (PPS), Polyvinyl Toluene (PVT), Polyamide 6,6 (PA66), Polyamide 4,6 (PA46), Liquid Crystal Polymer (LCP), Polyether Ether Ketone (PEEK), Polyphthalamide (PPA), or a resin grade, such as taught or suggested by Ohshio, 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). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of providing an electrically insulating attachment feature which can withstand high temperatures.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota, in view of Cha, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Bayer et al. (DE 102017222631 A1, herein referred to as: Bayer).
Regarding claim 11, Ota does not explicitly teach that the attachment ring is formed from a material comprising at least one of glass fibers and carbon fibers.
Bayer teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-15) the attachment ring (48) is formed from a material comprising at least one of glass fibers and carbon fibers (e.g. “…the adapter ring may be made of, for example, glass fiber reinforced plastics (GRPs) or acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer (ABS) or metals such as aluminum or steel…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Ota and incorporated the teachings of the attachment ring is formed from a material comprising at least one of glass fibers and carbon fibers, such as taught or suggested by Bayer, 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). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving the resilience and/or the longevity of the attachment ring.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the instant drawings depict: “...three screw holes equidistantly spaced around a circumference of the lamp body...” in Fig. 4 of the instant application, page 7 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The screw holes in the instant application are labeled with element numeral “14,” as is clearly described in the instant specification: “...the fixing element 6 (e.g., the screws 6 in the illustrated embodiment) may be fixed in respective screw holes 14 of the lamp body 3 while engaging a respective wave trough 8 of the attachment ring 4.” Applicant argues Fig. 4 provides the necessary support. However, Fig. 4 is directed to the holes in the attachment ring, not the lamp body, as noted in the corresponding description. Additionally, the cited embodiment also appears to obviate any use or need of the recited wave troughs. Thus, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the above-cited feature is not supported by the instant figures.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the instant drawings depict: “...wherein the elastic element abuts the inner face...” in Fig. 2 of the instant disclosure, page 7 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Fig. 2, the elastic element is labeled “10” and the attachment ring is labeled “4.” The elements are not shown in abutment. Further, the instant disclosure does not provide any such depiction of an exploded view of Fig. 2, which renders this feature undiscernible as to where the attachment ring begins and where it ends along the length of the device. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the above-cited feature is not supported by the instant figures.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the instant drawings depict: “...wherein the plurality of screw holes is greater than the plurality of screws...” in Fig. 4 of the instant application, page 7 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, Fig. 4 is directed to an embodiment not claimed. The holes are not formed in the lamp body, rather, they are formed in the attachment ring. Furthermore, when holes are formed in attachment ring, as noted in paragraphs [0030]- [0031], there must exist some arrangement for them within the lamp body as well, which is also not depicted. Additionally, the Examiner also notes that the embodiment of the cited paragraphs does not utilize screws, and in fact uses a pin. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the above-cited feature is not supported by the instant figures.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the instant disclosure provides support under 35 U.S.C. 112 for: “...wherein the elastic element abuts the inner face...,” page 8 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, the paragraph cited by Applicant (paragraph [0027]) makes no mention about an “inner surface.” Applicant has elected to define a surface of the attachment ring as “an inner surface,” which is not recited in the instant specification, as was noted by the Examiner in the previous office action. The only mentions of abutment between the elastic element and the attachment ring are made to a “second axial end” thereof, and both are optional as the ring “may” abut, as noted in paragraphs [0029] and [0038]. However, as noted in the drawings above, the attachment ring is labeled element 4, and there is no exploded view of the device to show the attachment ring in detail. Further, a view of the attachment ring 4 by itself, without any other elements, has not been provided. Thus, it is unclear if the two elements are actually in abutment at all. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the instant disclosure does not provide support for “wherein the elastic element abuts the inner face.”
In response to Applicant's argument that the combined teachings of Ota and Cha failed to teach or suggest that: “...a plurality of screw holes positioned in the lamp body" and "a plurality of screws, each disposed through at least one of the plurality of screw holes in the lamp body and engaged with at least one of the wave troughs to fix an angular position of the attachment ring...,” pages 8-10 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, Cha teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-12) said plurality of holes (41b) are a plurality of screw holes (41b), said pin is a plurality of screws (44) used to fix and angularly position the attachment ring (42). As noted in Cha, “...the second fastening section 44 is composed of a bolt, one end is screwed to a screw tap of the lamp fixed body (41), (41b), the other end is projected to the outside. At this time, the second and the other end of the fastening part 44 can be fixed to be inserted into the fastening groove (42b) of the vehicle body fixing body 42 it can be fixed in caught at the touch of a button on the reflector body...” Thus, in view of the teachings of Cha, one skilled in the art would readily ascertain the use of screws and screw holes as one of many fastening devices available for use in coupling the recited claim elements. Further, one skilled in the art would understand and recognize the benefits of utilizing rigid fasteners which can be removed from the device or otherwise replaced or positioned independently of one another. The substitution of screws and screw holes for the openings and pin of Ota requires no undue experimentation, and would be a simple substitution readily ascertainable to one skilled in the art in view of the cited teachings. Therefore, the combined teachings of Ota and Cha reasonably teach or suggest the above-cited claim limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at (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 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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875