DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Stat
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a liquid or tacky state sealant disposed in the recess… form a bond, when the liquid or tacky state sealant cures…” The limitation is a method step recited in an apparatus claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe , 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) MPEP. 2113
The Examiner recommends reciting the limitation as “configured to form a bond” or to recite the sealant in its cured form, i.e. the finalized product.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9, which recites the light module of claim 1, and therefore contains all of the subject matter of claim 1. Therefore limitations recited have unclear antecedent basis as there is already recited “a fastener” and “a fastener stop” in claim 1, from which it depends.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected for being dependent on rejected claim 10.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9, which recites the light module of claim 1, and therefore contains all of the subject matter of claim 1. Therefore the fastener stop and associated limitations are already recited from the incorporation of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR101081105b1 (hereinafter referred to as 105, included on IDS) in view of CN203082721U (hereinafter referred to as 721, included on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, 105 teaches a light module (see fig. 6), comprising:
a housing (body portion 10) including a recess (see fig. 6) and a fastener stop (cover fixing portion);
a sealant (outer sealing ring) disposed in the recess (see fig. 6);
a transparent panel (transparent cover 40) made from a material disposed in the housing (see fig. 6), wherein at least a portion of the transparent panel is disposed over the recess and the sealant form a bond (disposed directly over 52 to bond), when the sealant cures, between the housing and the portion; and
a fastener (fixing bolts 51) connected to the housing (10) that supports the transparent panel and is prevented from exerting excessive pressure on the transparent panel by the fastener stop (50, see fig. 6),
wherein the fastener stop (50) is a raised protrusion that prevents the fastener to be inserted below a fixed depth/location (see fig. 6), wherein the raised protrusion is the same height as at least a portion of the optical plate (same height as output surface).
105 does not teach that the seal is a liquid or tacky state sealant and that the transparent panel is made from a plastic material.
721 teaches that the seal is a liquid or tacky state sealant (marine glue, see background technology section) and that the transparent panel is made from a plastic material(polycarbonate or PMMA, see background technology).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a liquid or tacky state sealant of 721 instead of the sealing ring of 105 to form a good sealing effect from its high viscosity and expansion shrinkage character, see background of 721.
Regarding claim 2, 105 teaches that the fastener is a screw (51) and the fastener stop ) is a protrusion on the housing (ring 50) that prevents the fastener from being inserted below a predetermined position.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “screw” has been interpreted as a “threaded rod”. The Examiner notes that the figure indicates a pointed tip, however this is not required by the definition and furthermore does not structurally affect the claimed invention. The limitation “protrusion on the housing” does not require that the protrusion is an integral part of the housing.
Regarding claim 3, 105 teaches that the recess is annular and has a cross-section selected from the group consisting of circular, elliptical, triangular, square, rectangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, or octagonal.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of 105 and 721 teaches that the bond is waterproof.
Regarding claim 5, 105 teaches further comprising an LED module (LEDs 21) disposed between the housing and the transparent panel wherein the housing functions at least in part as a heatsink (inherently transmits heat) and the transparent panel is an optical plate (emits light).
721 additionally teaches that the housing functions at least in part as a heat sink (body 4 is a heat dissipation block, see abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have formed the housing of 105 to dissipate the heat of the LED modules as taught by 721 to prevent overheating and extend the light of the light sources.
Regarding claim 6, 721 teaches that the sealant is a liquid adhesive sealant (marine glue, viscosity discussed).
Regarding claim 7, 105 teaches that the light module (21 and lens 30) forms at least part of a housing for a luminaire (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, 105 teaches a luminaire comprising the light module of claim 1 and a mounting assembly (see fig. 8), wherein the light module and the mounting assembly are connected to form a sealed enclosure against environmental hazards (“Mounted in the power supply line inlet 15 of the body portion 10 in the state inserted into the water is prevented from penetrating the gap between the power supply line 70 and the body portion 10.”)
Regarding claim 9, 105 teaches that the housing (10) made at least in part from a thermally conductive material and the recess (see fig. 5) is an annular recess, wherein the transparent panel an optical plate ; and an LED module disposed between the housing and the optical plate, and wherein at least some of the heat generated by the LED module is conveyed to the housing and dissipated.
721 additionally teaches that the housing functions at least in part as a heat sink (body 4 is a heat dissipation block, see abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have formed the housing of 105 to dissipate the heat of the LED modules as taught by 721 to prevent overheating and extend the light of the light sources.
Regarding claim 10, 105 teaches further comprising a fastener and the housing further includes a fastener stop, wherein the fastener is connected to the housing and supports the optical plate and the fastener is prevented from exerting excessive pressure on the optical plate by the fastener stop (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, 105 teaches that the fastener is a screw and the fastener stop is a protrusion on the housing that prevents the fastener from being inserted below a predetermined position (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, 105 teaches that the annular recess has at least a partial cross-section selected from the group consisting of circular, elliptical, triangular, square, rectangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, or octagonal.
Regarding claim 13, 105 and 721 teaches that the bond is waterproof.
Regarding claim 14, 105 teaches that the light module forms at least part of a housing for a luminaire (combination of light modules).
Regarding claim 15, 105 teaches a luminaire comprising the light module of claim 1 and a mounting assembly, wherein the light module and the mounting assembly are connected to form a sealed enclosure against environmental hazards (in lines and light structure, see fig. 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Matthew J. Peerce/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights