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 11 August 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8 have been amended. Claim 9 has been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-8 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 18 July 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202321891839.X application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (CN 218295478 U), in view of Matsuda et al. (US 2012/0262928 A1, herein referred to as: Matsuda) and Harpenau et al. (US 2017/0268736 A1, herein referred to as: Harpenau).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng teaches or suggests a down lamp (Figs. 1-3), comprising a mounting seat (3) and a lamp body (1, 2), wherein a mounting cavity is arranged inside the mounting seat (as shown in Fig. 1); a connecting sheet (the portion shown extending across the bottom of the cavity in 3, in Fig. 1) is integrally formed with an inner bottom of the mounting cavity at a bottom of the mounting seat (as shown in Fig. 1); one or more limiting strips (the strip shaped recesses shown on the inner wall of the cavity in 3, as shown in Fig. 1) are connected to an inner wall of the mounting cavity (as shown in Fig. 1); the lamp body comprises a shell (24); a light source module (23) is arranged inside the shell (upon assembly, as shown in Fig. 3); the light source module comprises an aluminum base plate (23, e.g., see embodiment 7: “...the aluminum substrate 23 is mounted on the radiating plate 24...”); the aluminum base plate is provided with one or more lighting lamp beads (as shown in Fig. 1); a reflective cup (25) is arranged above the light source module (as shown in Fig. 1); a cover (1) is arranged above the reflective cup (as shown in Fig. 1); and one or more fastening edges (22) corresponding to the one or more limiting strips are arranged at a circumference of the shell (“...the shell 3 is provided with a second connecting piece matched with the second adapter 22...” as shown in Fig. 1); wherein an outer contour dimension of the mounting seat (3) substantially gradually increases from a top to the bottom of the mounting seat (as shown in Fig. 1).
Zheng does not explicitly teach that said cover is a diffusion cover.
Matsuda teaches or suggests a down lamp (Figs. 1-11), comprising a mounting seat (15, 16, 17) and a lamp body (18), wherein a mounting cavity (the interior cavity of 15 and/or 16) is arranged inside the mounting seat (as shown in Figs. 7-8); a connecting sheet (93, 94, and/or 82) is connected to an inner bottom of the mounting cavity (as shown in Figs. 7-8), and each of two sides of the connecting sheet is of a hollow structure exposing a screw hole (as shown in Figs. 7-8); one or more limiting strips (88 and/or 89) are connected to an inner wall of the mounting cavity (as shown in Fig. 8); the lamp body (18) comprises a shell (28, 29); a light source module (23) is arranged inside the shell (as shown in Fig. 2); the light source module (23) comprises an aluminum base plate (57, as described in paragraph [0047]); the aluminum base plate (57) is provided with one or more lighting lamp beads (54, as described in paragraph [0044]); a reflective cup (24) is arranged above the light source module (as shown in Figs. 1-2 and 10); a diffusion cover (26, as described in paragraph [0061]) is arranged above the reflective cup (as shown in Figs. 1-2 and 10); and one or more fastening edges (50 and/or 51) corresponding to the one or more limiting strips (88 and/or 89) are arranged at a circumference of the shell (as shown in Fig. 4).
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 Zheng and incorporated the teachings of said cover is a diffusion cover, such as taught or suggested by Matsuda, in order to improve the appearance of the device (e.g., by providing a cover which can spread light from and conceal the lamp beads there behind).
The combined teachings of Zheng and Matsuda teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for each of two sides of the connecting sheet has an exposure hole configured to expose a screw hole of a junction box.
Harpenau teaches or suggests (Figs 1-13) two sides of the connecting sheet (e.g. 408) has an exposure hole configured to expose a screw hole of a junction box (as shown in Figs. 1-13).
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 Zheng and incorporated the teachings of each of two sides of the connecting sheet has an exposure hole configured to expose a screw hole of a junction box, such as taught or suggested by Harpenau, in order to improve the utility and/or marketability of the device (e.g., by providing a fitting to attach the lamp to a junction box where the lamp is to be installed).
Regarding claim 3, Zheng does not explicitly teach that the shell is an aluminum member, and the aluminum base plate fits snugly to an inner bottom of the shell.
Matsuda teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-11) the shell (28, 29) is an aluminum member (at least element 29 of said shell 28, 29 is an aluminum member, as described in paragraph [0035]), and the aluminum base plate (57) fits snugly to an inner bottom of the shell (as 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 Zheng and incorporated the teachings of the shell is an aluminum member, and the aluminum base plate fits snugly to an inner bottom of the shell, such as taught or suggested by Matsuda, in order to improve the efficiency and/or rigidity of the device.
Regarding claim 4, Zheng teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-3) one or more clamping slots (21) are arranged at a circumference of the shell (as shown in Fig. 1), and the diffusion cover (1) is provided with one or more buckles (11) corresponding to the one or more clamping slots (as shown in Fig. 1 and as noted in the corresponding description).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, in view of Matsuda and Harpenau, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Alexander et al. (US 2011/0063849 A1, herein referred to as: Alexander).
Regarding claim 2, neither Zheng, Matsuda, nor Harpenau explicitly teach that a bottom surface of the one or more limiting strips is of a slope structure, and a limiting bulge is arranged on the bottom surface of the one or more limiting strips.
Alexander teaches or suggests (Fig. 4) a bottom surface (317a and/or 317b) of the one or more limiting strips (312) is of a slope structure (as shown in Fig. 4), and a limiting bulge (the bottom edge of 312 below 317a, forming part of the opening 314 in Fig. 4, and/or 317c) is arranged on the bottom surface of the one or more limiting strips (as shown in Fig. 4).
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 Zheng and incorporated the teachings of a bottom surface of the one or more limiting strips is of a slope structure, and a limiting bulge is arranged on the bottom surface of the one or more limiting strips, such as taught or suggested by Alexander, 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 providing a means to guide the lamp into the cavity, and/or provide a means to prevent reverse rotation of the lamp within the cavity.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, in view of Matsuda and Harpenau, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Van Winkle (US 2018/0206305 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, neither Zheng, Matsuda, nor Harpenau explicitly teach that a dial switch is connected to the aluminum base plate, and the lighting lamp beads comprise low color temperature lamp beads and high color temperature lamp beads (as recited in claim 5); and wherein a bottom of the shell is provided with a slidable dial handle connected to the dial switch in a dialing manner (as recited in claim 6).
Van Winkle teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-52) a dial switch (e.g., as shown in Fig. 52) is connected to the base plate (at a side thereof, as shown in Fig. 52), and the lighting lamp beads comprise low color temperature lamp beads and high color temperature lamp beads (e.g., as described in paragraph [0093]); and wherein a bottom of the shell is provided with a slidable dial handle (e.g., at a side thereof, as shown in Fig. 52) connected to the dial switch (on the inside of the lamp shell) in a dialing manner (from 3000K-5000K, as shown in Fig. 52).
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 Zheng and incorporated the teachings of a dial switch is connected to the aluminum base plate, and the lighting lamp beads comprise low color temperature lamp beads and high color temperature lamp beads (as recited in claim 5); and wherein a bottom of the shell is provided with a slidable dial handle connected to the dial switch in a dialing manner (as recited in claim 6), such as taught or suggested by Van Winkle, 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., providing a configuration to make the color temperature of the lamp adjustable, and thus, additionally optional for use in more lighting applications).
Regarding claim 7, neither Zheng, Matsuda, nor Harpenau explicitly teach that the aluminum base plate is further provided with one or more night lamp beads located on an outer circle outside the lighting lamp beads.
Van Winkle teaches or suggests (Fig.47) the base plate (276) is further provided with one or more night lamp beads (290) located on an outer circle (290) outside the lighting lamp beads (as shown in Fig. 47, furthermore, no operation of the night lamp beads is defined in relation to the lighting lamp beads in the scope of the claims. Thus, the cited lamp beads can merely be designated as night lamp beads and thus read on the scope of the claimed invention).
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 Zheng and incorporated the teachings of the aluminum base plate is further provided with one or more night lamp beads located on an outer circle outside the lighting lamp beads, such as taught or suggested by Van Winkle, 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 the quality and/or performance of the device (i.e., by arranging the lamp beads in a pattern suitable for uniform illumination).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, in view of Matsuda and Harpenau, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Rashidi (US 8,408,759 B1).
Regarding claim 8, neither Zheng, Matsuda, nor Harpenau explicitly teach a frosted surface is arranged on a side edge of a light exiting surface of the diffusion cover.
Rashidi teaches or suggests (Fig. 11R) a frosted surface (504) is arranged on a side edge of a light exiting surface of the diffusion cover (as shown in Fig. 11R).
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 Zheng and incorporated the teachings of a frosted surface is arranged on a side edge of a light exiting surface of the diffusion cover, such as taught or suggested by Rashidi, 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 the quality and/or performance of the device (i.e., by increasing the light uniformity in an emission region around the periphery of the diffusion cover), and/or increase the utility of the device (i.e., by providing an embodiment for the light diffusion cover suited to additional lighting applications or requirements).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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