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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 26 August 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 10, and 39 have been amended. Claims 3, 5, 14-15, 19-38, and 40 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-13, 16-18, and 39 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
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 1-2, 4, 6-13, 16-18, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stimac et al. (US 2009/0021936 A1, herein referred to as: Stimac), in view of Kegelbahntechnik (DE 20018865 U1).
Regarding claim 1, Stimac teaches or suggests a modular lighting segment structure (Figs. 1-5) for use in assembling in a series of at least two thereof for a grid lighting system (the modular lighting segments of Figs. 1-5 are capable of use in a grid lighting system), comprising: at least one transfer structure (26) extending along a length dimension thereof (as shown in Figs. 1-5), the at least one transfer structure having at least two end regions (end regions having 22 and 24, as shown in Figs. 1-5); at least one pair of first modular junction structures (22 and 24) associated with a corresponding one of the at least one transfer structure (26, as shown in Figs. 1-5) and in power transferring relation therewith (as shown in Fig. 5), wherein each one of the at least one pair of first modular junction structures (22 and 24) is accessible adjacent the transfer structure (as shown in Figs. 1-5), and is configured to be in power transferring relation with a modular junction structure (another 22 or 24 of an adjacent unit, as shown in Figs. 1-5) on a transfer structure (another 26 of an adjacent unit, as shown in Figs. 1-5) of at least one of an adjacent modular lighting segment structure and an adjacent supply structure (as shown in Figs. 1-5; additionally, note that while two modular lighting segment structures are shown, and an adjacent supply structure, or one formed by an adjacent modular lighting segment structure, the device is not limited thereto and more may be incorporated as needed or desired); at least one group of first transfer channels (three channels shown in Fig. 5, and as described in paragraph [0017], formed by the wires shown in Fig. 5. Note, as the “group” is not particularly defined in the claims, nor are the elements of one group excluded from being included in another group, the groups can be formed by combinations of two wires, i.e. positive negative, negative ground, positive ground, etc.) extending along the at least one transfer structure (as shown in Fig. 5), and configured to be in power transferring relation with, one pair of the at least one pair of first modular junction structures (22 and 24, as shown in Fig. 5); at least two of the at least one group of first transfer channels (said three channels shown in Fig. 5, and as described in paragraph [0017], formed by the wires shown in Fig. 5) are configured to be in at least one of a power transferring relation and a signal transferring relation with at least one of the of the first modular junction structures (said at least one group of first transfer channels are in, at least, a power transferring relation with at least one of the of the first modular junction structures 22 and 24); and at least one first modular sub-junction structure (102) configured to be in power transferring relation with at least one of: a corresponding group of the at least one group of first transfer channels (as shown in Figs. 1-5, i.e. via 28) to exchange line voltage power therewith (e.g. as recited in paragraph [0018]); at least one first modular lighting structure (10), or at least one first lighting accessory (14) to be associated with the modular lighting segment structure (as shown in Figs. 1-5); the adjacent supply structure to receive line voltage power therefrom (as shown in Figs. 1-5 and as described in paragraph [0018]); and another structure (28, or an any other component electrically connected in the circuit of the lighting system shown in Figs. 1-5) associated with the modular lighting segment structure (as shown in Figs. 1-5).
Stimac does not explicitly teach that the at least one group of first transfer channels includes one power transfer channel and two signal transfer channels.
Kegelbahntechnik teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-7) the at least one group of first transfer channels includes one power transfer channel and two signal transfer channels (e.g. the two outer cables [power], and three inner cables [data/signal] shown in Fig. 2).
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 Stimac and incorporated the teachings of the at least one group of first transfer channels includes one power transfer channel and two signal transfer channels, such as taught or suggested by Kegelbahntechnik, 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 improving, or otherwise increasing, the marketability and/or utility of the device (i.e. by providing a configuration by which the LEDs can be independently controlled, and/or provide varying light patterns).
Regarding claim 2, Stimac teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) one or more of the first modular junction structures (22 and 24) are each accessible adjacent a corresponding end region (as shown in Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, Stimac teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) the at least one group of first transfer channels (said three channels shown in Fig. 5, and as described in paragraph [0017], formed by the wires shown in Fig. 5) extends between at least one pair of the at least one pair of first modular junction structures (22 and 24).
Regarding claim 6, Stimac teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) at least one first driver structure (28) to be associated with one of the at least one transfer structure (26, as shown in Figs. 1-5), wherein the at least one first driver structure (28) is configured to be in power and/or signal transferring relation with at least one of the first modular sub-junction structures (102; as shown in Figs. 1-5, i.e., 28 is in, at least, power transferring relation with at least one of the first modular sub-junction structures 102).
Regarding claim 7, Stimac teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) the at least one transfer structure (26) includes at least one board structure (the various walls of 26 each form board structures, additionally, the claim does not particularly recite any structural features of the board structure that define that over a board or a board-shaped structure), wherein the at least one group of first transfer channels (said three channels shown in Fig. 5, and as described in paragraph [0017], formed by the wires shown in Fig. 5) includes a plurality of conductive pathways (i.e. conductive wires) applied to the at least one board structure (the claim does not recite what the conductive pathways are, nor how they are “applied,” thus, said plurality of conductive wires of said at least one group of first transfer channels are applied by the attachment shown in Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Stimac does not explicitly teach that the at least one transfer structure is configured to transfer power and signals therealong (as recited in claim 8); wherein the first transfer channels include a plurality of power transfer channels and a plurality of signal transfer channels (as recited in claim 9).
Kegelbahntechnik teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-7) the at least one transfer structure is configured to transfer power and signals therealong (e.g. the two outer cables [power], and three inner cables [data/signal] shown in Fig. 2); wherein the first transfer channels include a plurality of power transfer channels and a plurality of signal transfer channels (e.g. the two outer cables [power], and three inner cables [data/signal] shown in Fig. 2).
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 Stimac and incorporated the teachings of the at least one transfer structure is configured to transfer power and signals therealong (as recited in claim 8); wherein the first transfer channels include a plurality of power transfer channels and a plurality of signal transfer channels (as recited in claim 9), such as taught or suggested by Kegelbahntechnik, 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 improving, or otherwise increasing, the marketability and/or utility of the device (i.e. by providing a configuration by which the LEDs can be independently controlled, and/or provide varying light patterns).
Regarding claim 10, Stimac teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) at least one group of second transfer channels (three channels shown in Fig. 5, and as described in paragraph [0017], formed by the wires shown in Fig. 5. Note, as the “group” is not particularly defined in the claims, nor are the elements of one group excluded from being included in another group, the groups can be formed by combinations of two wires, i.e. positive negative, negative ground, positive ground, etc.) extending along the at least one transfer structure (26) and configured to be in power transferring relation with one pair of the at least one pair of first modular junction structures (22 and 24, as shown in Figs. 1-5); and one or more second modular sub-junction structures (e.g. another 10, 14, 28, 22, and/or 24 of an adjacent light module, or another sub-junction structure of the modular lighting segment structure) to be in power transferring relation with at least one of: a corresponding group of the at least one group of first and/or second transfer channels (as the group of first and/or second transfer channels pass power to adjacent channels, said one or more second modular sub-junction structures are in power transferring relation therewith), at least one second modular lighting structure (an adjacent second modular lighting structure, as shown in Figs. 1-5), or at least one second lighting accessory to be associated with the modular lighting segment structure (another electronic component of the modular lighting segment structure, as shown in Figs. 1-5), and; another structure of at least one of onboard and offboard the modular lighting segment structure (another structure in electrical communication or otherwise electrically coupled in the circuit with the one or more second modular sub-junction structures, as shown in Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, Stimac teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) the at least one transfer structure (26) includes at least one board structure (the various walls of 26 each form board structures, additionally, the claim does not particularly recite any structural features of the board structure that define that over a board or a board-shaped structure), wherein at least one of the at least one group of first transfer channels and the at least one group of second transfer channels are in the form of conductive pathways applied to the at least one board structure (the claim does not recite what the conductive pathways are, nor how they are “applied,” thus, said plurality of conductive wires of said at least one group of first transfer channels are applied by the attachment shown in Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 12, Stimac teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) at least one of the at least one first modular lighting structure and the at least one second modular lighting structure respectively include at least one of the at least one first driver structure (28) and at least one second driver structure (28) configured to be associated with the at least one transfer structure (26; as shown in Fig. 5, additionally, the claim does not set forth the particulars of the “association”), and to be in at least one of a power transferring relation and a signal transferring relation with a corresponding at least one of the first and second modular sub-junction structures (each of said drivers is in, at least, power transferring relation with at least one of said first and second modular sub-junction structures, as outlined above and as shown in Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 13, Stimac teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) a modular lighting segment structure assembly (Figs. 1-5), comprising at least two modular lighting segment structures as defined in claim 1 (as shown in Figs. 1-5 and as outlined in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Stimac teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) the other structure associated with the modular lighting segment structure (28, 10, 14, 16, etc.) is onboard the modular lighting segment structure (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Stimac teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) the other structure associated with the modular lighting segment structure (i.e. an electrical component of a connected adjacent modular lighting segment structure, as shown in Figs. 1-5) is offboard the modular lighting segment structure (as shown in Figs. 1-5, i.e. the another structure need be in power transfer relation with said another structure “associated with the modular lighting segment structure,” which is satisfied by an electrical component of an adjacent modular lighting segment structure which transfers power between or along the adjacent units).
Regarding claim 18, Stimac teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) the at least two end regions are at least one of spaced apart, opposed and adjacent (a shown in Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 39, Stimac teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) a lighting module (Figs. 1-5) comprising the modular lighting segment structure of claim 1 (as shown in Figs. 1-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, page 7 of the above cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the incorporation of any number of additional data channels would have been readily recognized by one skilled in the art as providing additional lighting functions or modes to the device to impart additional utility and applications of their use. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised of the benefits imparted to the device of Stimac in view of the teachings of Kegelbahntechnik, as outlined above, and as set forth in the previous non-final office action mailed 26 February 2025.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, since “...The structures in combined Ref 1 and Ref 2 provide no suggestion for attaching to anything. Rather, the combined references provide “two outer cables [power], and three inner cables [data/signal].” In contrast, amended claim 1 claims one power transfer channel and two signal transfer channels...,” page 8 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, the incorporation of any number of additional data channels would have been readily recognized by one skilled in the art as providing additional lighting functions or modes to the device to impart additional utility and applications of their use. Furthermore, the addition of additional data channels incorporated by additional wires or signal lines requires no undue experimentation by one skilled in the art. Lastly, the Examiner respectfully notes that the claim utilizes open-ended transitional language (i.e., comprising) and thus, can have additional power lines. Further, even if the claim did not utilize such language, one skilled in the art would recognize that a combination of lines of the Stimac reference can form a single power line (e.g., a bundled multi-channel or multi-core power line for positive/negative power flow and grounding, as are commonly known in the art). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised of the benefits imparted to the device of Stimac in view of the teachings of Kegelbahntechnik.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Kegelbahntechnik teaches away from the proposed modification, page 8 of the above cited remarks, it is noted that the Applicant is using “teaching away” in a much broader sense that it is legally accepted. For a reference to be considered to teach away from a proposed modification such reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the proposed combination. In re Fulton, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Applicant is further advised that disclosed examples and/or preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments, even if such nonpreferred embodiments are described as somewhat inferior. See In re Susi, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971), and In re Gurley, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case, the incorporation of any number of additional data channels would have been readily recognized by one skilled in the art as providing additional lighting functions or modes to the device to impart additional utility and applications of their use. There is no such teaching in either of the references that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the proposed combination. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised of the benefits imparted to the device of Stimac in view of the teachings of Kegelbahntechnik, and neither reference teaches away from said combination.
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 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 on (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