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 15 September 2025 has been entered. Claims 22-23, 25 and 31 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claim 1-32 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 22 being independent. Claims 1-21 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention, the election made without traverse in the reply filed on 05 May 2025. The 112 rejections set forth in the previous non-final office action mailed 12 August 2025 are overcome by Applicant’s amendments.
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 22-25 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 11,852,333 B1, herein referred to as: Harvey), in view of Meyers et al. (US 2016/0363711 A1, herein referred to as: Meyers).
Regarding claim 22, Harvey teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-20) a lens (146) comprising: an attachment portion (162) including a first elongated aperture (as shown in Fig. 8); and a light directing portion (the body of 146 having 147 thereon, i.e., the portion of 146 above the portion having 162 thereon) that is elongated along a direction that is non-parallel to the first elongated aperture (as noted in col. 6, lines 60-64, and col. 7 lines 16-19, additionally, the direction along 146 extending away from 162 is elongated in relation to the thickness of the lens, and thus forms an elongated direction non-parallel to the first elongated aperture, additionally, as the claim merely requires a non-parallel direction, this limitation would be met by a diagonal direction along 146 extending from 162); wherein the light directing portion defines a sawtooth pattern (147) in a plane that is perpendicular to a horizontal direction (i.e., a plane as viewed in Fig. 13, and e.g., a horizontal direction extending away from 162); the sawtooth pattern (147) includes a first portion (147a), a second portion (147b), and a straight portion (192) that connects the first portion to the second portion (as shown in Fig. 16), and the attachment portion (162) lacks light refracting features (162 receives 160 therein and has no refracting features).
Harvey does not explicitly teach that the first portion is a first arcuate portion, the second portion is a second arcuate portion, and the straight portion connects the first arcuate portion to the second arcuate portion.
Meyers teaches or suggests (Fig. 7) the first portion is a first arcuate portion (48a), the second portion is a second arcuate portion (another 48a), and the straight portion (the straight portion between each 48a) connects the first arcuate portion to the second arcuate portion (as shown in Fig. 7).
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 Harvey and incorporated the teachings of the first portion is a first arcuate portion, the second portion is a second arcuate portion, and the straight portion connects the first arcuate portion to the second arcuate portion, such as taught or suggested by Meyers, 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 tailoring the emission through the lens as desired for the suited application. Additionally, Harvey is not particular to the shape of the above-cited portions, as noted in col. 3, lines 9-27.
Regarding claim 23, Harvey does not explicitly teach that the straight portion faces toward the attachment portion and the first arcuate portion, and the second arcuate portion have convex shapes.
Meyers teaches or suggests (Fig. 7) the straight portion faces toward the attachment portion (as shown in Fig. 7, e.g., the attachment portion coupled to 20A, see Fig. 1) and the first arcuate portion, and the second arcuate portion have convex shapes (48, paragraph [0035]).
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 Harvey and incorporated the teachings of the straight portion faces toward the attachment portion and the first arcuate portion, and the second arcuate portion have convex shape, such as taught or suggested by Meyers, 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 tailoring the emission through the lens as desired for the suited application. Additionally, Harvey is not particular to the shape of the above-cited portions, as noted in col. 3, lines 9-27.
Regarding claims 24-25, Harvey does not explicitly teach that (as recited in claim 23), the first arcuate portion is defined by a spline that extends predominately along a vertical direction, and the straight portion extends predominately along a direction that is perpendicular to the horizontal and the vertical directions (as recited in claim 24); the light directing portion defines a polynomial curve in a plane that is perpendicular to the direction along which the light directing portion is elongated (as recited in claim 25).
Meyers teaches or suggests (Fig. 7) the first arcuate portion is defined by a spline that extends predominately along a vertical direction (as shown in Fig. 7), and the straight portion extends predominately along a direction that is perpendicular to the horizontal and the vertical directions (into and out of the page in Fig. 7); the light directing portion include defines a polynomial curve in a plane that is perpendicular to the direction along which the light directing portion is elongated (as shown in Fig. 7).
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 Harvey and incorporated the teachings of the first arcuate portion is defined by a spline that extends predominately along a vertical direction, and the straight portion extends predominately along a direction that is perpendicular to the horizontal and the vertical directions (as recited in claim 24); the light directing portion include defines a polynomial curve in a plane that is perpendicular to the direction along which the light directing portion is elongated (as recited in claim 25), such as taught or suggested by Meyers, 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 tailoring the emission through the lens as desired for the suited application.
Regarding claim 32, Harvey teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-20) the lens defines a first plane of symmetry that is perpendicular to a horizontal direction (the plane of the highlighted portion shown in Fig. 16), and a second plane of symmetry that is perpendicular to a direction that is perpendicular to the horizontal direction, and a vertical direction (a second plane passing through 146 perpendicular to the first plane, i.e., or a plane along the direction y into and out of the page in the highlighted portion of Fig. 16).
Claims 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey, in view of Meyers, as applied to claim 25 above, and in further view of Bennett et al. (US 2017/0059119 A1, herein referred to as: Bennett).
Regarding claims 26-31, neither Harvey nor Meyers explicitly teach or suggest that the polynomial curve is a parametrically defined degree = (n-1) Bezier curve, controlled by a set of (n) discrete control points, and by the following equation: P(t) = (1-t)2Pr + 2t(1-t)Pq + t2Pp where Pr and Pp are predetermined endpoints, and Pq is a center point that is varied to change spread angles form incoming light rays to a desired target (as recited in claim 26); wherein the x coordinate of a point on the Bezier curve is defined by the following equation: y(t) =(1-t)2yr + 2t(1-t)yq + t2yp (as recited in claim 27); wherein the z coordinate of a point on the Bezier curve is defined by the following equation: z(t) =(1-t)2zr + 2t(1-t)zq + t2zp (as recited in claim 28); a Y coordinate of Pr is 0, and a Z coordinate of Pr is 0 (as recited in claim 29); wherein a Y coordinate of Pp is .046 inches, and a Z coordinate of Pp is .259 inches (as recited in claim 30); wherein a Y coordinate of Pq is 0.582, and a Z coordinate of Pq is 0.184 inches (as recited in claim 31).
Bennett at least teaches or suggests (Figs. 9-10) forming curved prismatic structures defined by Bezier functions (see paragraphs [0086], [0087], and [0090]).
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 Harvey and incorporated the teachings of the polynomial curve is a parametrically defined degree = (n-1) Bezier curve, controlled by a set of (n) discrete control points, and by the following equation: P(t) = (1-t)2Pr + 2t(1-t)Pq + t2Pp where Pr and Pp are predetermined endpoints, and Pq is a center point that is varied to change spread angles form incoming light rays to a desired target (as recited in claim 26); wherein the x coordinate of a point on the Bezier curve is defined by the following equation: y(t) =(1-t)2yr + 2t(1-t)yq + t2yp (as recited in claim 27); wherein the z coordinate of a point on the Bezier curve is defined by the following equation: z(t) =(1-t)2zr + 2t(1-t)zq + t2zp (as recited in claim 28); a Y coordinate of Pr is 0, and a Z coordinate of Pr is 0 (as recited in claim 29); wherein a Y coordinate of Pp is .046 inches, and a Z coordinate of Pp is .259 inches (as recited in claim 30); wherein a Y coordinate of Pq is 0.582, and a Z coordinate of Pq is 0.184 inches (as recited in claim 31), 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 of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of tailoring the emission through the lens as desired for the suited application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that a change in construction to the device of Harvey would render it inoperative for its intended purpose for pointing the light downwardly, pages 9-12 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, Harvey is not particular to the shape of the glare reduction panel 146, as noted in col. 3, lines 9-27. Rather, the shape of the glare reduction panel can be altered from the disclosed embodiment as desired, and result in spreading the light output in a desired direction, thereby reducing glare from the fixture. Thus, the device of Harvey would not be rendered inoperable by the proposed modification.
In response to Applicant’s argument that none of the prior art references teach or suggest convex arcuate surfaces, page 7 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, while not depicted in the drawings of Meyers, Meyers teaches convex portions (48, paragraph [0035]). Therefore, the combined teachings of Harvey and Meyers teach or suggest the above-cited claim limitation. Additionally, in light of the above, the shapes of the portions of Meyers are also not considered critical to the device thereof (as noted in paragraph [0035]).
In response to Applicant’s argument to the combination of Harvey and Bennett, claims 26-31, pages 15-16 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, as it relates to the device of Harvey, which places no criticality on the shape of the claimed arcuate portion, one skilled in the art would recognize Bezier curves to be common place in describing the curvature along an optical surface, or a curved prism in the case of the Bennett reference. Thus, forming a curved surface according to a Bezier curve as suggested by Bennett, results in a mere change in shape or configuration to the portions without any criticality in operation of the device, and is thus 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 (e.g., directing light in direction other than that emitted by the light sources so as to reduce glare caused thereby). Therefore, the combined teachings of Harvey and Bennet reasonably teach or suggest the above-cited claim limitations. Furthermore, no light emission or direction is recited in the instant claims that would otherwise differentiate the prior art devices from the instant application. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 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