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
The amendment filed 1/02/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10 is/are pending. Claim(s) 10 is/are newly added.
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) 1-3, 5, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (JP 20100153106) in view of JP 6755600.
Claim 1: Ono teaches a lamp comprising: a light source (8, fig. 2) configured to emit light; a support structure (3, fig. 2) supporting the light source (8); and an optical component (32-36, fig. 2) configured to change the characteristics of the light emitted from the light source (8),wherein the support structure (3) comprises a first support (S1, see annotated fig. 1) extending along a first axis (A1, see annotated fig. 1), and a second support (S2, see annotated fig. 1) that is connected to the first support (S1) and extends along a second axis (A2, see annotated fig. 1), wherein the light source (8) and the optical component (32-36) are configured to move linearly (see figs. 2 and 3) relative to each other along the second axis (A2, see annotated fig. 1), wherein the optical component (32-36) is configured to change a direction of an irradiation direction (direction of light is adjusted by the movement of 34 or 35, fig. 2b) of light emitted from the light source (8) and traveling to an illumination surface by a relative linear movement (horizontal movement of 34 and 35) with respect to the light source along the second axis (A2), and wherein the light source (8) and the optical component (34-35) are configured to be able to gradually change a direction of light irradiation (change of direction of light irradiation is controlled by sliding the projection 36 by a user’s hand) by changing a relative position of the light source (8) and the optical component (34, 35) so that a maximum illumination point on the illumination surface can gradually move along the second axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
758
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Ono is silent about the support structure is configured to rotate both the light source and the optical component about the first axis.
JP teaches a light source (92, fig. 3) configured to emit light; a support structure (7, 9, fig. 3) supporting the light source (921); and an optical component (93, 94, fig. 3) configured to change the characteristics of the light emitted from the light source (92), wherein the support structure (7,9) comprises a first support (7) extending along a first axis (A, fig. 1), and a second support (9, fig. 1) that is connected to the first support (7) and extends along a second axis (D, fig. 1), wherein the support structure (7, 9) is configured to rotate both the light source (92) and the optical component (93, 94) about the first axis (7 and 9 can be rotated about A axis about the base 5, fig. 1).
Therefore, in view of JP, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of the support structure of Ono where the support structure is configured to rotate both the light source and the optical component about the first axis, in order to increase the illumination range of the lamp.
Claim 2: Ono teaches the optical component (32-36, fig. 2) has a length (L1, see annotated fig. 2) in a direction perpendicular to the second axis (A2) that is shorter than a length (L1, see annotated fig. 2) thereof in a direction of the second axis (horizontal direction of A2, see annotated fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
410
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: Ono teaches the light source (8) has a length (L1, see annotated fig. 2) in a direction perpendicular to the second axis (A2) that is shorter than a length (L2, see annotated fig. 2) thereof in a direction of the second axis (horizontal direction of A2, see annotated fig. 2).
Claim 5: Ono teaches the optical component (32-36, fig. 2) is a reflector (13, fig. 2b) configured to reflect the light emitted from the light source, or an optical lens (34, 35, fig. 2).
Claim 7: Ono teaches the optical component (32-36, fig. 2) is a reflector (13, fig. 2b) configured to reflect the light emitted from the light source, or an optical lens (34, 35, fig. 2).
Claim 8: Ono teaches the optical component (32-36, fig. 2) is a reflector (13, fig. 2b) configured to reflect the light emitted from the light source, or an optical lens (34, 35, fig. 2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (JP 20100153106) in view of JP 6755600 as applied to claim(s) 5 above, and further in view of Stein (US 2010/0110677).
Claim 6: Ono teaches the reflector (13, fig. 2b) comprises a pair of first reflecting surfaces (left and right surfaces of 13, fig. 2b) arranged to face each other along a direction (horizontal direction in fig. 2b) of the second axis (A2), and
However, Ono fails to teach a pair of second reflecting surfaces arranged to face each other in a direction perpendicular to the second axis, and wherein the first reflecting surface has a more upright shape closer to a direction perpendicular to a surface where the light source is arranged, compared to the second reflecting surface.
Stein teaches a pair of first reflecting surfaces (left and right surfaces of 100, fig. 1), a pair of second reflecting surfaces (upper and lower surface of 104, fig. 1) arranged to face each other in a direction perpendicular to the second axis (horizontal direction in fig. 1), and the first reflecting surface (surface of 100, fig. 1A) (see fig. 4) has a more upright shape (see fig. 4) closer to a direction perpendicular to a surface (surface of 114, fig. 4) where the light source (102, fig. 4) is arranged, compared to the second reflecting surface (surface of 104, fig. 1A) (see fig. 5).
Therefore, in view of Stein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the first and second reflecting surface of JP such that the first reflecting surface has a more upright shape closer to a direction perpendicular to a surface where the light source is arranged, compared to the second reflecting surface, in order to adjust the angle of the light output beam to produce a desired lighting distribution.
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the reflector such that the first reflecting surface has a more upright shape closer to a direction perpendicular to a surface where the light source is arranged, compared to the second reflecting surface to adjust the angle of the light output beam to produce a desired lighting distribution, since it has been held that the configuration of the reflective surfaces was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Ono does not disclose or suggest controlling illumination by gradually shifting the maximum illumination point through relative motion between a light source (the light emitting diode 8) and an optical component (the light scattering part 34 or the lens 35). In Ono, the relative movement of the light source and the optical element is not for a gradual change of the point of maximum illumination, but for selecting either the light propagation mode (i.e., the light diffusing mode) or the light focusing mode”, the examiner notes that the relative motion of the lens (6) shifting between the transparent portion (15) and diffusing portion (16) would gradually shift the maximum illumination point considering when the lens shifts between the two portions the light output is shifted i.e. transparent has a more concentrated point of maximum illumination while the diffusing mode has a more dispersed point of maximum illumination. Furthermore, the examiner notes that claim 1 does not recite sufficient structure where the optical component of claim 1 is distinguished from the lens of Ono.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “These features provide technical effects that are neither disclosed nor suggested by Ono. and the subject matter of claim 1 would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that again the claims recite functional features without a corresponding structural element capable of performing said function distinguished from the Ono reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken as a whole does not show nor suggest the optical component, which is configured to move linearly relative to the light source, is a reflector configured to reflect the light emitted from the light source with respect to claim(s) 10, as specifically called for in the claimed combinations.
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 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 ZHENG B SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-9402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 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 (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.
/ZHENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875