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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major (US 11032893 B2, and Major hereinafter) in view of Schneider et al. (US 7798830 B2, and Schneider hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Major discloses a pivotable junction box and driver housing unit, comprising:
a junction box (108, fig. 3) having a junction box cavity (fig. 5);
a driver housing (110, fig. 3) having a driver housing cavity to contain a light fixture driver (fig. 5, “In other examples … the second compartment is configured to accommodate the driver 117”, Col. 5, ln. 57-60), wherein the junction box and the driver housing are attached to each other (figs. 1-5), and wherein the junction box and the driver housing are rotatable with respect to each other (see rotation axis 128 and rotation directions 126 and 133 in fig. 2), and wherein the junction box and the driver housing are rotatable to a linear position (fig. 8) such that a first wire opening in a wall of the junction box is aligned with a second wire opening in a wall of the driver housing (when 110 and 120 are in linear position shown in fig. 8, opening 135 located in vertical sidewall of 131 of 110, show in fig. 5, would be facing opening in vertical sidewall of 120 shown in fig. 4); and
at least one electrical cable extending between the driver housing and the junction box (implicitly disclosed, “the driver box 106 is connected to the light fixture 100 through wired connections 124”, Col. 4, ln. 47-48, and “the first compartment 108 is configured to accommodate the wire connections and the second compartment is configured to accommodate the driver 117”, Col. 5, ln. 57-60; see also fig. 1).
Major does not explicitly disclose the at least one electrical cable extending through the first wire opening and the second wire opening, wherein the pivotable junction box and driver housing unit includes a rotatable latch, wherein when the rotatable latch is releasably engaged to a latch post, the rotatable latch retains the junction box and the driver housing in a linear position.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have at least one electrical cable extending between the driver housing and the junction box through the first wire opening and the second wire opening, in order to provide adequate protection to the cable connecting the LED light fixture and its driver while minimizing its length. Having cables extending through openings of electrical junction boxes is a common practice in the art, that would lead to a predictable result of safely housing part of the cable (instead of being exposed outside of the boxes) in a space that is accessible to user, and thus, it would be considered obvious to try as part of a routine optimization process (MPEP § 2144.05, II, A-B).
Schneider discloses a rotatable latch (40, figs. 2-3), wherein when the latch is releasably engaged to a latch post (12, fig. 2-3) the latch retains two elements (10 and 30, fig. 2) in a linear position (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Major to incorporate the teachings of Schneider so that the pivotable junction box and driver housing unit includes a latch, wherein when the latch is releasably engaged to a latch post the latch retains the junction box and the driver housing in a linear position, in order to selectively draw them together and lock/unlock them as desired, without the need of tools (“Peg 12 extends perpendicular to one side 13 of the modular component and can engage with a latching lever 40, both to draw the component into the universal grounded connector, and to lift and eject it”). Rotatable latch systems are common practice in the art to secure two elements together. Applying a said rotatable latch to the known junction box – driver housing interface would represents the use of a known technique to yield predictable results of securing said elements together without the need of tools, and therefore would have been obvious to try under KSR International Co. v. Telefelex Inc. (See also MPEP § 2144 II).
Regarding Claim 2, Major/Schneider discloses the pivotable junction box and driver housing unit of wherein the junction box comprises attachment tabs (arc-shaped ends of 108 that hold 130, fig. 3 of Major) that are positioned adjacent to side walls of the driver housing (fig. 3 of Major) and wherein one or more fasteners (“rods”, Col. 8, ln. 16 of Major) extend through holes in the attachment tabs and the side walls of the driver housing to rotatably attach the junction box and the driver housing to each other (fig. 2 of Major).
Regarding Claim 3, Major/ Schneider discloses the pivotable junction box and driver housing unit of Claim 2, wherein the attachment tabs comprise a first attachment tab that is adjacent to a first side wall of the side walls of the driver housing and a second attachment tab that is adjacent to a second side wall of the side walls of the driver housing (fig. 5 of Major, left and right tabs of 108).
Regarding Claim 6, Major/ Schneider discloses the pivotable junction box and driver housing unit of Claim 1, wherein the wall of the junction box is adjacent to the wall of the driver housing when the junction box and the driver housing are in the linear position (e.g. adjacent sidewalls of 108 and 110 shown in fig. 8 of Major).
Regarding Claim 8, Major/ Schneider discloses the pivotable junction box and driver housing unit of Claim 1, further comprising a mounting structure (surface on which 135 are positioned, fig. 4 of Major) having a mounting hole (135, fig. 4 of Major) for attaching the pivotable junction box and driver housing unit to a ceiling using a fastener that extends through the mounting hole (shape of holes 135 shown in fig. 4 of Major are a feature commonly known in the art, and typically fasteners are inserted through such holes to mount of fix the element containing said holes. See also figs. 5 and 8 of Major and “The light fixture 100 may commonly be mounted in or on a ceiling”, Col. 4, ln. 25-26).
Regarding Claim 9, Major discloses a light fixture driver assembly, comprising:
a pivotable junction box and driver housing unit, comprising:
a junction box (108, fig. 3) having a junction box cavity (fig. 5);
a driver housing (110, fig. 3) having a driver housing cavity, wherein the junction box and the driver housing are attached to each other (figs. 1-5), wherein the junction box and the driver housing are rotatable with respect to each other (see rotation axis 128 and rotation directions 126 and 133 in fig. 2), and wherein the junction box and the driver housing are rotatable to a linear position (fig. 8) such that a first wire opening in a wall of the junction box is aligned with a second wire opening in a wall of the driver housing (when 110 and 120 are in linear position shown in fig. 8, opening 135 located in vertical sidewall of 131 of 110, show in fig. 5, would be facing opening in vertical sidewall of 120 shown in fig. 4);
at least one electrical cable extends between the driver housing and the junction box (implicitly disclosed, “the driver box 106 is connected to the light fixture 100 through wired connections 124”, Col. 4, ln. 47-48, and “the first compartment 108 is configured to accommodate the wire connections and the second compartment is configured to accommodate the driver 117”, Col. 5, ln. 57-60; see also fig. 1); and
and a light fixture driver positioned in the driver housing cavity (“driver 117 (such as an LED driver) for the light fixture 100”, Col. 5, ln. 55-56 in view of “In other examples … the second compartment is configured to accommodate the driver 117”, Col. 5, ln. 57-60).
Major does not explicitly disclose the at least one electrical cable extending through the first wire opening and the second wire opening, wherein the pivotable junction box and driver housing unit includes a rotatable latch, wherein when the latch is releasably engaged to a rotatable latch post the rotatable latch retains the junction box and the driver housing in a linear position.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have at least one electrical cable extending between the driver housing and the junction box through the first wire opening and the second wire opening, in order to provide adequate protection to the cable connecting the LED light fixture and its driver while minimizing its length. Having cables extending through openings of electrical junction boxes is a common practice in the art, that would lead to a predictable result of safely housing part of the cable (instead of being exposed outside of the boxes) in a space that is accessible to user, and thus, it would be considered obvious to try as part of a routine optimization process (MPEP § 2144.05, II, A-B).
Schneider discloses a rotatable latch (40, figs. 2-3), wherein when the latch is releasably engaged to a latch post (12, fig. 2-3) the latch retains two elements (10 and 30, fig. 2) in a linear position (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Major to incorporate the teachings of Schneider so that the pivotable junction box and driver housing unit includes a latch, wherein when the latch is releasably engaged to a latch post the latch retains the junction box and the driver housing in a linear position, in order to selectively draw them together and lock/unlock them as desired, without the need of tools (“Peg 12 extends perpendicular to one side 13 of the modular component and can engage with a latching lever 40, both to draw the component into the universal grounded connector, and to lift and eject it”). Rotatable latch systems are common practice in the art to secure two elements together. Applying a said rotatable latch to the known junction box – driver housing interface would represents the use of a known technique to yield predictable results of securing said elements together without the need of tools, and therefore would have been obvious to try under KSR International Co. v. Telefelex Inc. (See also MPEP § 2144 II).
Regarding Claim 10, Major/Schneider discloses the light fixture driver assembly of Claim 9, wherein junction box comprises attachment tabs (arc-shaped ends of 108 that hold 130, fig. 3 of Major) that are positioned adjacent to side walls of the driver housing (fig. 3 of Major) and wherein one or more fasteners (“rods”, Col. 8, ln. 16 of Major) extend through holes in the attachment tabs and the side walls of the driver housing to rotatably attach the junction box and the driver housing to each other (fig. 2 of Major).
Regarding Claim 11, Major/ Schneider discloses the light fixture driver assembly of Claim 10, wherein the attachment tabs comprise a first attachment tab that is adjacent to a first side wall of the side walls of the driver housing and a second attachment tab that is adjacent to a second side wall of the side walls of the driver housing (fig. 5 of Major, left and right tabs of 108).
Regarding Claim 15, Major/ Schneider discloses the light fixture driver assembly of Claim 9, wherein the wall of the junction box is adjacent to the wall of the driver housing when the junction box and the driver housing are in the linear position (e.g. adjacent sidewalls of 108 and 110 shown in fig. 8 of Major).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major in view of Schneider, further in view of Fujimoto (JP 2019021551 A, and Fujimoto hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 4, Major/ Schneider discloses the pivotable junction box and driver housing unit of Claim 3 but does not explicitly disclose a first fastener of the one or more fasteners extends through a hole in the first attachment tab and a hole in the first side wall of the side walls, and wherein a second fastener of the one or more fasteners extends through a hole in the second attachment tab and a hole in second side wall of the side walls.
Fujimoto discloses a first fastener (instance of 505 shown on the front sidewall of 501b, fig. 2), extends through a hole in a first attachment tab and a hole in a first side wall (figs. 2-4, rivet 505 goes through end portions of sidewalls 501b and 503b shown in fig. 2), and wherein a second fastener (instance of 505 shown on the rear sidewall of 501b, fig. 2) extends through a hole in the second attachment tab and a hole in a second side wall (figs. 2-4, rivet 505 goes through end portions of sidewalls 501b and 503b shown in fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Major and Schneider to incorporate the teachings of Fujimoto so that a first fastener of the one or more fasteners extends through a hole in the first attachment tab and a hole in the first side wall of the side walls, and wherein a second fastener of the one or more fasteners extends through a hole in the second attachment tab and a hole in second side wall of the side walls, in order to reduce the length and weight of the fasteners and improve accessibility to each side of the hinge system for assembly/disassembly or maintenance purposes. Fujimoto’s dual fastener approach is a known technique that achieves similar hinge functionality as Major’s single shaft approach. Thus, substitution of the single fastener by a dual fastener system is a predictable design choice, and would be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill (See MPEP § 2143, I).
Regarding Claim 12, Major/ Schneider discloses the light fixture driver assembly of Claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose a first fastener of the one or more fasteners extends through a hole in the first attachment tab and a hole in the first side wall of the side walls, and wherein a second fastener of the one or more fasteners extends through a hole in the second attachment tab and a hole in the second side wall of the side walls.
Fujimoto discloses a first fastener (instance of 505 shown on the front sidewall of 501b, fig. 2), extends through a hole in a first attachment tab and a hole in a first side wall (figs. 2-4, rivet 505 goes through end portions of sidewalls 501b and 503b shown in fig. 2), and wherein a second fastener (instance of 505 shown on the rear sidewall of 501b, fig. 2) extends through a hole in the second attachment tab and a hole in a second side wall (figs. 2-4, rivet 505 goes through end portions of sidewalls 501b and 503b shown in fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Major and Schneider to incorporate the teachings of Fujimoto so that a first fastener of the one or more fasteners extends through a hole in the first attachment tab and a hole in the first side wall of the side walls, and wherein a second fastener of the one or more fasteners extends through a hole in the second attachment tab and a hole in second side wall of the side walls, in order to reduce the length and weight of the fasteners and improve accessibility to each side of the hinge system for assembly/disassembly or maintenance purposes. Fujimoto’s dual fastener approach is a known technique that achieves similar hinge functionality as Major’s single shaft approach. Thus, substitution of the single fastener by a dual fastener system is a predictable design choice, and would be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill (See MPEP § 2143, I).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major in view of Schneider, further in view of Rempel (US 8740412 B2, and Rempel hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 7, Major/ Schneider discloses the pivotable junction box and driver housing unit of Claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose a wire strain relief structure included with the junction box or driver housing.
Rempel discloses a wire strain relief structure (244, fig. 2) included with a driver housing (112, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Major and Schneider to incorporate the teachings of Rempel so that it further comprises a wire strain relief structure included with the junction box or driver housing, in order to control the length of wire that extends into the housing elements (“The one or more strain reliefs 244 may be used to control the amount of the second length 132b of the conductive wire 132 extending between the transformer housing 112 and the lamp housing 122”, Col. 6, ln. 26-29 of Rempel).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-3 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 11/02/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the new scope of the claims introduced by the amendments newly found prior art references.
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 Martin A Asmat-Uceda whose telephone number is (571)270-7198. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights