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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In Claim 1, the limitations “a polymeric enclosure element functionally coupled to the second support part, wherein the polymeric enclosure element partly encloses only the communication element, wherein the polymeric enclosure element comprises a first polymeric enclosure extension, wherein the metal closure is configured to lock the first polymeric enclosure extension” are unclear since neither the written description nor the drawings appear to describe/show the claimed features. This amended limitation is a new matter as there is no support by the SPEC.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, all the limitations, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (see above rejection) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cater (US 20180070465).
With regard claim 1, Cater discloses A lighting device control assembly (abstract, see also fig 1-10) comprising: - a housing part (any housing part in fig 1 and fig 2); - a support comprising a printed circuit board (at least fig 1-2, no label; paragraph [0027]-[29], at least processor, DSP, analog circuit etc.), wherein the support comprises a first support part and a second support part (at least fig 1-2, the first support part coupled to the lighting device control electronics which control, at least 104, 156); wherein the support is functionally coupled to the housing part (at least fig 1-2, paragraph [38]-[40]); - lighting device control electronics functionally coupled to the first support part of the support (at least fig 1-2, coupled as a whole device); - a metal closure functionally coupled to the housing part (at least fig 1-2, paragraph [68]-[73], at least 102), wherein the lighting device control electronics are configured in an enclosure at least partly defined by the metal closure and the housing part (at least fig 1-2, paragraph [68]-[73]); - a communication element (at least fig 1-2, paragraph [64]-[68]) functionally coupled to the second support part and functionally coupled to the lighting device control electronics (at least fig 1-2, fig 7-9); - a polymeric enclosure element functionally coupled to the second support part (at least fig 1-2, paragraph [42]-[45]), wherein the polymeric enclosure element partly encloses only the communication element (at least fig 1-2, see also fig 3; paragraph [42]-[45]; the portion of the polymeric enclosure partly encloses only the communication element, Examiner consider as “the polymeric enclosure element partly encloses only the communication element”), wherein the polymeric enclosure element comprises a first polymeric enclosure extension (at least fig 1-2, Examiner consider the end portion is the “extension”; can be both ends), wherein the metal closure is configured to lock the first polymeric enclosure extension (at least fig 4-5, the structures are interlock with notch and hook elements).
Examiner’s note: enclose: to hold or contain; https://www.dictionary.com/browse/enclose
Regarding claim 3, Cater further disclosed the first polymeric enclosure extension comprises a notch element (at least fig 6A-6C show more than one notch elements to interlock with the other parts), wherein part of the metal closure is configured in the notch element and exerts a force on an edge of the notch element in the direction of the support (at least fig 10A-10B, see also fig 6A-6C show more than one notch elements to interlock with the other parts).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “Applicants respectfully disagree. As shown in figs.1-2, for example, Cater fails to teach or imply that "the secondary polymeric enclosure element (800) partly encloses only the wireless communication device (520), wherein the secondary polymeric enclosure element (800) comprises a secondary first polymeric enclosure extension (811), wherein the metal closure (640) is configured to lock the secondary first polymeric enclosure extension (811)," as claimed.” (pages 7 to the end).
Examiner’s Answer: the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that:
The amendments are not supported by the SPEC. (See 112 rejection)
The cited art successfully teaches:
a polymeric enclosure element functionally coupled to the second support part (at least fig 1-2, paragraph [42]-[45]), wherein the polymeric enclosure element partly encloses only the communication element (at least fig 1-2, see also fig 3; paragraph [42]-[45]; the portion of the polymeric enclosure element partly encloses only the communication element, Examiner consider as “the polymeric enclosure element partly encloses only the communication element”), wherein the polymeric enclosure element comprises a first polymeric enclosure extension (at least fig 1-2, Examiner consider the end portion is the “extension”; can be both ends), wherein the metal closure is configured to lock the first polymeric enclosure extension (at least fig 4-5, the structures are interlock with notch and hook elements).
Examiner’s note: enclose: to hold or contain; https://www.dictionary.com/browse/enclose
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5420. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP: M-Th: 8:30-12:30; 2:30-8:30pm.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached on 571.270.5528. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERRY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights