DETAILED ACTION
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 08/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-14 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 8 should be -- the plurality .
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YARNELL (US 10,072,806), and in view of CHRIST (US 9,062,866) and BRAY (US 5,465,199).
Regarding claim 1, YARNELL discloses a detachable trim accessory assembly for a luminaire, the detachable trim accessory comprising
a trim ring (235, Fig.2) comprising a plurality of trim ring coupling features (903, Fig.10) disposed on the trim ring, wherein each of the plurality trim ring coupling features comprises a protruding tab (as seen in Fig.10, the trim ring coupling features 903 were considered to be the protruding tabs 903);
a trim adapter (230, Fig.2) comprising a trim adapter collar (as seen in Fig.8, the “trim adapter collar” was considered to be the bottom portion 870 of the trim adapter 230) and a plurality of trim adapter coupling features (232, Fig.8) disposed on the trim adapter collar, wherein each of the plurality of trim adapter coupling features comprises a slot (as seen in Fig.8, the trim adapter coupling features 232 were considered to be the slots) having a first end and a second end, wherein each first end receives the protruding tab of the trim ring into the slot (as seen in Figs.8 and 10, the slot 232 of the trim adapter 230 receives the protruding tab 903 of the trim ring 235); and
wherein the trim adapter further comprises a trim adapter body (as seen in Fig.8, the “trim adapter body” was considered to be the top portion 899 of the trim adapter 230) above the trim adapter collar and a plurality of securing member assemblies (801, Fig.8) disposed on the trim adapter body, wherein each of the plurality of securing member assemblies is configured to secure the trim adapter body against a flange (252, 253, Fig.2) of a luminaire (220, 215, 205, Fig.2).
YARNELL fails to disclose wherein the second end comprises a cradle that retains the protruding tab of the trim ring when the trim ring is twisted relative to the trim adapter; wherein each of the plurality of securing member assemblies comprises a securing member that is a spring clip, wherein the spring clip has a top wall and a bottom wall that are substantially parallel with each other, and wherein the spring clip is moveable relative to the trim adapter body in one position to engage, or another position to disengage, with the flange of the luminaire.
However, CHRIST discloses a spring clip (500, Fig.5) including a top wall (591, Fig.5) and a bottom wall (593, Fig.5) substantially parallel with each other (as seen in Fig.5, the top wall 591 and the bottom wall 593 was considered to be generally substantially parallel in that the top and bottom wall 591, 593 extend along a horizontal plane), and the spring clip is moveable relative to a trim adapter body (211, Fig.2B) in a position to engage with a flange of a luminaire (as seen in Figs.2B and 4B, the spring clip 100 is movable 212 relative to the trim adapter 211 to engage with the trim flange 454 of the luminaire 450).
However, BRAY discloses a slot (58, 60, Fig.3) having a first end and a second end, the first end receives a protruding tab (44, Fig.3) into the slot, and the second end includes a cradle (64, Fig.3) retaining the protruding tab (44, 48, Figs.3 and 5).
Therefore, in view of CHRIST, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a spring clip as taught by CHRIST to the securing member assemblies of the trim adapter of YARNELL in order to provide an alternative attachment mechanism (such as spring clips) to attach the trim adapter and the trim flange of the luminaire.
Therefore, in view of BRAY, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cradle as taught by BRAY to the trim adapter coupling features of the trim adapter of YARNELL modified by CHRIST in order to provide an alternative attachment mechanism of locking the protruding tab into the slot by rotating the trim ring with respect to the trim adapter.
Regarding claim 2, YARNELL further discloses wherein each of the plurality of securing member assemblies (801, Fig.8) is configured to be removably secured to the flange (253, Fig.2) of the luminaire without use of tools.
Regarding claim 3, YARNELL further discloses wherein the plurality of trim ring coupling features (232, Fig.8) and the plurality of trim adapter coupling features (903, Fig.10) are detachably coupled to each other without using tools (Figs.2, 8, and 10).
Regarding claim 5, YARNELL modified by CHRIST and BRAY as discussed above for claim 1 further discloses wherein the trim ring is rotated less than 90 degrees for each of the plurality of trim ring coupling features to travel between the first end and the second end of each slot of the plurality of trim adapter coupling features (as seen in Fig.3 of BRAY, the trim ring 34 was considered to be rotated less than 90 degrees for the trim ring coupling features 44 to travel between the first and second end of the slot 58, 60 of the trim adapter coupling features 58, 60).
Regarding claim 6, YARNELL modified by CHRIST and BRAY as discussed above for claim 1 further discloses wherein when the protruding tab of each of the plurality of trim ring coupling features is retained by the cradle at the second end of each slot of the plurality of trim adapter coupling features, the trim ring is pushed toward the trim adapter body and rotated toward the first end of each of slot of the plurality of trim adapter coupling features to remove the trim ring (as seen in Fig.3 of BRAY, the protruding tab 44 of the trim ring coupling features 44 is retained by the cradle 64 at the second end of the slot 58, 60 of the trim adapter coupling features 58, 60, and the trim ring 34 is pushed and rotated toward the first end of each of slot 58, 60 of the trim ring coupling features 58, 60 to remove the trim ring 34).
Regarding claim 7, YARNELL further discloses wherein the trim adapter (230, Fig.2) remains coupled to the flange (252, 253, Fig.2) of the luminaire (220, 215, 205, Fig.2) when the trim ring (235, Fig.2) is removed.
Regarding claim 8, YARNELL further discloses wherein the trim ring (235, Fig.2) comprises a trim ring body (235a, Fig.10) that hides the plurality of trim adapter coupling features (232, Fig.8), the plurality of trim ring coupling features (903, Fig.10), and the plurality of securing member assemblies (801, Fig.8) from being seen from a volume of space in which light emitted from a light source (col.9, lines 33-41) of the luminaire is directed (as seen in Fig.2, when the trim ring 235 in attached, the trim ring 235 was considered to hide the trim adapter coupling features 232, the trim ring coupling features 903, and the trim ring securing member assemblies 801 from being seen from a space).
Regarding claim 9, YARNELL further wherein a portion of the light emitted from the light source (col.9, lines 33-41) is directed through the trim ring body (235a, Fig.10) into the volume of space.
Regarding claim 10, YARNELL modified by CHRIST and BRAY as discussed above for claim 1 further discloses wherein each of the plurality of securing member assemblies is rotatably coupled to the trim adapter body (as seen in Figs.2B-4B of CHRIST, the trim ring securing member assemblies 300 is rotatably coupled to the trim adapter body 211).
Regarding claim 11, YARNELL discloses a luminaire comprising
a first trim comprising a trim body (220, 215, 205, Fig.2) and a trim flange (252, 253, Fig.2), wherein the trim flange is disposed at a distal end of the trim body; and
a detachable trim accessory assembly (230, 235, Fig.2) removably coupled to the first trim, wherein the detachable trim accessory assembly comprises a trim adapter (230, Fig.2) comprising a trim adapter body (as seen in Fig.8, the “trim adapter body” was considered to be the top portion 899 of the trim adapter 230) and a plurality of securing member assemblies (801, Fig.8) disposed on the trim adapter body, wherein each of the plurality of securing member assemblies is configured to secure the trim adapter body against the trim flange; and
wherein the detachable trim accessory assembly further comprises a second trim (235, Fig.2) having a plurality of trim coupling features (903, Fig.10) disposed on the second trim, wherein each of the plurality of trim coupling features comprises a protruding tab (903, Fig.10), and wherein the plurality of trim coupling features are removably coupled to a plurality of trim adapter coupling features (232, Fig.8) of the trim adapter, wherein each of a plurality of trim adapter coupling features are located on a trim adapter collar (as seen in Fig.10, the “trim adapter collar” was considered to be the bottom portion 870 of the trim adapter 230) below the trim adapter body and comprise a slot (232, Fig.8) having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end receives the protruding tab into the slot (as seen in Figs.8 and 10, the a slot 232 of the trim adapter 230 receives the protruding tab 903 of the trim ring 235).
However, YARNELL fails to disclose wherein each of the plurality of trim ring securing member assemblies comprises a securing member that is a spring clip, wherein the spring clip has a top wall and a bottom wall that are substantially parallel with each other, and wherein the spring clip is moveable relative to the trim adapter in one position to engage, or another position to disengage, with the trim flange; wherein the first end receives the protruding tab into the slot when the second trim is twisted relative to the trim adapter, and wherein the second end comprises a cradle that retains the protruding tab.
However, CHRIST discloses a spring clip (500, Fig.5) including a top wall (591, Fig.5) and a bottom wall (593, Fig.5) substantially parallel with each other (as seen in Fig.5, the top wall 591 and the bottom wall 593 was considered to be generally substantially parallel in that the top and bottom wall 591, 593 extend along a horizontal plane), and the spring clip is moveable relative to a trim adapter (211, Fig.2B) in a position to engage with a trim flange (as seen in Figs.2B and 4B, the spring clip 100 is movable 212 relative to the trim adapter 211 to engage with the trim flange 454).
However, BRAY discloses a slot (58, 60, Fig.3) having a first end and a second end, the first end receives a protruding tab (44, Fig.3) into the slot when a second trim (38, Fig.3) is twisted, and the second end includes a cradle (64, Fig.3) retaining the protruding tab (44, 48, Figs.3 and 5).
Therefore, in view of CHRIST, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a spring clip as taught by CHRIST to the trim ring securing member assemblies of YARNELL in order to provide an alternative attachment mechanism (such as spring clips) to attach the trim adapter and the trim flange of the luminaire.
Therefore, in view of BRAY, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cradle as taught by BRAY to the trim ring coupling features of YARNELL modified by CHRIST in order to provide an alternative attachment mechanism of locking the protruding tab into the slot by rotating the trim ring with respect to the trim adapter.
Regarding claim 14, YARNELL further discloses wherein the first trim (220, 215, 205, 252, 253, Fig.2) and second trim (235, Fig.2) are different shapes of dimensions (as seen in Fig.2, the first and second trim was considered to generally be different shapes of dimensions).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YARNELL (US 10,072,806) modified by CHRIST (US 9,062,866) and BRAY (US 5,465,199), and in view of STEINES (US 10,900,644).
Regarding claim 13, YARNELL modified by CHRIST and BRAY fails to disclose wherein the trim flange and the detachable trim accessory assembly are disposed below a ceiling within a volume of space separate from another volume of space above the ceiling in which a remainder of the luminaire is disposed.
However, STEINES discloses a trim flange (42, Fig.4) and a trim accessory assembly (52, Fig.4) are disposed below a ceiling (12, Fig.4) within a volume of space separate from another volume of space in which a remainder (22, Fig.4) of a luminaire is disposed.
Therefore, in view of STEINES, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the trim flange and the trim accessory assembly below a ceiling as taught by STEINES to the trim flange and the detachable trim accessory assembly of YARNELL modified by CHRIST and BRAY in order to provide a luminaire for an application such as a ceiling downlighter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued “Even assuming arguendo that one of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine the spring clips of Christ (and/or the trim stop feature of Bray) to the twist and lock ring of Yarnell, as an alternative attachment mechanism to attach a trim adapter to a housing of the luminaire, such combination would fail to disclose, teach, or suggest that which is claimed in amended independent Claim 1. Christ teaches the use of such spring clips for coupling a trim collar to an enclosure collar of the fixture enclosure using the spring clips. In Yarnell, the same attachment between the twist and lock ring and fixture housing is done with a twist and lock connection, where the slot for the twist and lock connection is not located on the twist and lock ring, rather protrusion elements are located on the twist and lock ring (same is true for the housing detent region of Bray being part of the fixture housing, not the trim element). In contrast, amended independent Claim 1 includes a slot and cradle as part of a lower adapter collar (not on the luminaire), and amended independent Claim 1 describes the slot and cradle as part of coupling to the protrusions of the trim ring, not for coupling the adapter to the flange of the luminaire (as in Yarnell and Bray)”.
In response to applicant’s argument, the applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to the prior art of record failing to show the trim adapter having both the slot on the bottom portion of the trim adapter and the spring clip on the top portion of trim adapter. However, it is noted that the claims were addressed by a combination of references where the primary reference YARNELL shows a trim adapter (or an in-between structure between the luminaire and the trim ring) having one type of coupling feature on the bottom portion of the trim adapter and another type of securing feature on the top portion of the trim adapter. While YARNELL fails to show slots for the coupling feature on the bottom portion of the trim adapter and spring clip on the top portion of the trim adapter, the prior art was considered to generally show that there are alternative mechanical fasteners for connecting parts together for related luminaire applications. For example: CHRIST showing the spring clip and BRAY showing the slot. In addition, while CHRIST and BRAY show one type of fastener (the spring clip and the slot respectively) directly connecting the trim ring, CHRIST and BRAY was used to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that spring clips and slots are typical mechanical fasteners. In view of CHRIST and BRAY, it was considered well within one of ordinary skill in the art to switch or replace the mechanical fasteners of YARNELL with another type of typical fastener (e.g. the spring clip and the slot) of CHRIST and BRAY.
In the current applicant’s remarks, the applicant has mainly argued that the prior art failed to teach a trim adapter having both the spring clip and slot. Since the claim was addressed as the combination of references where YARNELL already shows the trim adapter having two types of mechanical fasteners and the secondary references showing alternative typical mechanical fasteners, it is still considered well within one of ordinary skill in the art to switch between different types of mechanical fasteners at this time. Rather, the applicant should argue why these claimed specific spring clips and slots are distinct and critical to the applicant’s invention even though the prior art shows the structure performing a similar purpose, and why one of ordinary skill in the art wouldn’t have known or wouldn’t be obvious to select between these alternative mechanical fasteners. Therefore, the references disclose the limitations as currently claimed.
Applicant has further argued “As an additional point of distinction, if the spring clips of Christ are used as an alternative to the twist and lock feature of the ring in Yarnell, such a modification would not teach the use of both attachment features (i.e., spring clips and twist and lock slots) on the same adapter as described in amended independent Claim 1. As described in amended independent Claim 1, such attachment features are in different locations on the adapter (the spring clips disposed on an adapter body located above an adapter collar having the twist and lock slots), and each attachment feature is used for different purposes (spring clips to attach the adapter to the flange of the luminaire, and the slot and cradle to attach the trim ring to the adapter)”.
In response to applicant’s argument, as discussed above, the applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to the prior art of record failing to show the trim adapter having both the slot on the bottom portion of the trim adapter and the spring clip on the top portion of trim adapter. However, it is noted that the claims were addressed by a combination of references where the primary reference YARNELL shows a trim adapter (or an in-between structure between the luminaire and the trim ring) having one type of coupling feature on the bottom portion of the trim adapter and another type of securing feature on the top portion of the trim adapter. And CHRIST and BRAY were considered to generally show alternative mechanical fasteners for connecting parts together for related luminaire applications. As for the purpose, the general purpose was considered to be similar in that the spring clips and the slots of CHRIST and BRAY are used to connect parts of the luminaire together. As a result, since YARNELL already shows the trim adapter having two types of mechanical fasteners connecting the flange of the luminaire and the trim ring, it is still considered well within one of ordinary skill in the art to switch between different types of mechanical fasteners to also connect those parts together at this time.
The applicant should argue why these claimed specific spring clips and slots are distinct and critical to the applicant’s invention even though the prior art shows the structure performing a similar purpose, and why one of ordinary skill in the art wouldn’t have known or wouldn’t be obvious to select between these alternative mechanical fasteners. Therefore, the references disclose the limitations as currently claimed.
Applicant has further argued “For the sake of argument, even if one of ordinary skill in the art were motivated to add both the Christ spring clips and Yarnell twist and lock attachment to the same adapter, having both such attachment features as used in Yarnell and Christ (i.e., for attaching to the fixture housing) would be redundant. Or, at best, such functionality would only allow for attachment of the adapter to alternative fixture housing types having different attachment features (e.g., a fixture housing configured for attaching the adapter to an outer surface/flange via the spring clips or a different fixture housing configured to attach to an inner notched surface of the housing for a twist and lock connection to the adapter where the slot is still located on the fixture housing, not the adapter), as Yarnell and Christ use both such attachment features for attaching to the fixture housing and not for the different purpose of attaching a trim ring to the adapter at one end and attaching the adapter to the luminaire flange at the other end, as described in amended independent Claim 1”.
In response to applicant’s argument, as discussed above, YARNELL shows one type of coupling feature on the bottom portion of the trim adapter and another type of securing feature on the top portion of the trim adapter. Since the prior art shows examples of other typical mechanical fasteners for connecting parts together for related luminaire applications, it was considered well within one of ordinary skill in the art to switch or replace the mechanical fasteners of YARNELL with another type of typical fastener (e.g. the spring clip and the slot) of CHRIST and BRAY. The combination was not used to show adding additional mechanical fasteners for redundancy, but rather replacing typical mechanical fasteners with another type of typical mechanical fasteners such that the trim adapter still would have been attached to the flange of the luminaire and the trim ring.
The applicant should argue why these claimed specific spring clips and slots are distinct and critical to the applicant’s invention even though the prior art shows the structure performing a similar purpose, and why one of ordinary skill in the art wouldn’t have known or wouldn’t be obvious to merely between these alternative mechanical fasteners. Therefore, the references disclose the limitations as currently claimed.
Examiner’s Comment
It is noted that claim 11 is slightly broader than claim 1 because the body of claim 11 does not include attaching the detachable trim accessory assembly to a luminaire. As a result, additional prior art can be applicable to meet the body of the claims. For example: A luminaire reference would not be required to address claim 11 because the luminaire is not recited in the body of claim 11, and a general mechanical reference can be used.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JAMES ENDO whose telephone number is (571)272-2782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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 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.
/J.M.E/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ZHENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875