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 .
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 1-8, 10, 12-13, 15, 19, 20, 23-25, 28, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vang et al. (2019/0338924) in view of Ward (6,805,470) and Amrine, Jr. et al. (9,285,084).
With respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 19, and 20, Vang teaches an assembly, in particular a luminaire assembly, more in particular for use in tunnels, comprising a trunking profile (14) having an open side (top of 14), a cover (22) configured to close the open side of the trunking profile (Figs. 1-7), and a light source (114) and/or one or more electrical and/or electronic components (106 and 110) arranged in said trunking profile (Figs. 1-2), and wherein the trunking profile is configured to be elastically flexed in order to receive the cover (paragraph 45) [claim 1]; wherein the light source comprises a plurality of LED arrays each comprising at least four LEDs (paragraph 42) [claim 19].
Vang does not explicitly an extruded metal trunking profile, preferably an aluminum extruded trunking profile, wherein said cover is provided with a gasket arranged around a periphery of the cover, wherein the trunking profile is configured to be moved so as to widen the open side in order to receive the cover and to enclose a portion of the periphery with gasket under tension when deflexed; (claim 1); wherein the gasket has a substantially C-shaped cross section, and wherein the periphery of the cover is received in the gasket with an upper leg of the C-shaped cross section extending over an upper surface of the cover and a lower leg of the C-shaped profile extending over a lower surface of the cover (claim 3); teaches wherein the cover is a plate and the gasket extends from a lower surface to an upper surface of the plate (claim 4); wherein a plurality of optical elements such as lens elements is arranged over the plurality of LED arrays, and wherein preferably the plurality of optical elements is integrated in one or more optical plates, preferably lens plates, and/or wherein the plurality of LED arrays comprises a first branch of LED arrays electrically connected in series and a second branch of LED arrays electrically connected in series, wherein the first branch is electrically connected parallel to the second branch, and wherein preferably a LED array of the first branch is arranged between two LED arrays of the second branch (claim 20).
As for claim 1, Ward also drawn to luminaires, teaches wherein said cover (12) is provided with a gasket (68) arranged around a periphery of the cover (Figs. 2-3), wherein the trunking profile (14, 16, and 52) is configured to be moved so as to widen the open side in order to receive the cover and to enclose a portion of the periphery with gasket under tension when moved back to its original shape/position (Figs. 2-3 and column 4, lines 13-22).
As for claim 3, Ward teaches wherein the gasket (68) has a substantially C-shaped cross section, and wherein the periphery of the cover is received in the gasket with an upper leg of the C-shaped cross section extending over an upper surface of the cover and a lower leg of the C-shaped profile extending over a lower surface of the cover (Fig. 3).
As for claim 4, Ward teaches wherein the cover (12) is a plate and the gasket (68) extends from a lower surface (left side in Fig. 3) to an upper surface (right side of Fig. 3) of the plate (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the gasket, arrangement, and movement of Ward in the assembly of Vang, in order to provided a desired sealing face along the entire length of the fixture (column 4, lines 13-22).
As for claim 1, Amrine also drawn to luminaires, teaches an extruded metal (column 4, lines 4-7) trunking profile (802), preferably an aluminum extruded trunking profile (*note that “preferably” is given no patentable weight because the element is not explicitly required).
As for claim 20, Amrine also drawn to luminaires, teaches wherein a plurality of optical elements such as lens elements is arranged over the plurality of LED arrays (Figs. 5D-8), and wherein preferably the plurality of optical elements is integrated in one or more optical plates (502/812), preferably lens plates, and/or wherein the plurality of LED arrays comprises a first branch of LED arrays electrically connected in series and a second branch of LED arrays electrically connected in series, wherein the first branch is electrically connected parallel to the second branch, and wherein preferably a LED array of the first branch is arranged between two LED arrays of the second branch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the lens elements and extruded metal profile of Amrine in the luminaire of Vang, in order to increase light output uniformity and to provide for accurate and inexpensive manufacturing.
As for claim 2, Vang teaches wherein the cover (22) is transparent or translucent (paragraph 48).
As for claim 5, Vang teaches wherein the trunking profile (14) has a base wall (38) facing the cover (22) and two longitudinal sidewalls (34, 39, and 40) connected to opposite longitudinal sides of the base wall so as to form a channel-like longitudinal compartment (Fig. 3).
As for claim 6, Vang teaches wherein a longitudinal inner wall (right or left vertical walls of 98) extends from the base wall in the direction of the cover, dividing the compartment in two (Fig. 6).
As for claim 7, Vang teaches wherein an end portion of the longitudinal inner wall is provided with a support wall (top surface of 98) opposite the cover (Fig. 6).
As for claim 8, Vang teaches wherein the inner wall is provided with a threaded channel for receiving a fixation means for fixing the light source and/or one or more electrical and/or electronic components on the support wall, and/or wherein the light source comprises a carrier with a plurality of LEDs, and wherein the carrier is fixed on the support wall (Figs. 2 and 6; *note the “and/or” language provides alternative interpretations, therefore all of the elements of claim 8 are not required).
With respect to claim 10, Vang does not explicitly teach wherein the two longitudinal sidewalls are each provided at an outer surface with a recess or a protrusion configured for receiving a bracket for attaching the assembly to a wall, e.g. a wall of a tunnel, and/or wherein the two longitudinal sidewalls are each provided at the inner surface, near the open side, with a substantially U-shaped channel for receiving a longitudinal edge of the periphery of the cover and cooperating in a sealed manner with the gasket provided to the longitudinal edge (claim 10).
As for claim 10, Ward teaches wherein a longitudinal sidewall (18) is provided at an outer surface with a recess or a protrusion (at 38 and 42) configured for receiving a bracket (34) for attaching the assembly to a wall (column 3, lines 13-15). Although Ward does not explicitly teach two longitudinal sidewalls are each provided at an outer surface with a recess or a protrusion, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to duplicate the recess/protrusion, in order to provide more stable attachment to a wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the recess/protrusion and bracket of Ward in the assembly of Vang, in order to provide stable attachment to a wall.
As for claim 12, Vang teaches further comprising a first and a second end plate (26 and 30), wherein the open side extends longitudinally between a first lateral open end and a second lateral open end of the trunking profile, and wherein the first and second open end are closed with the first and the second end plate, respectively (Figs. 1-2).
As for claim 13, the elements of Ward added above further teach wherein the first and second end plate (25) are configured for receiving a first and a second lateral edge of the cover (12), respectively, and for cooperating in a sealed manner with the gasket provided to the first and second lateral edge, respectively (Figs. 1-3 and column 4, lines 6-22), and/or wherein the assembly further comprises a first and second gasket element, preferably a first and second gasket sheet, between the first end plate and a first lateral edge of the trunking profile delimiting the first lateral end and between the second end plate and a second lateral edge of the trunking profile delimiting the second lateral open end, respectively.
As for claim 15, Vang teaches wherein the first and/or the second end plate (123) is provided with a mechanical and/or electrical connector interface (123), such as a socket (123) or cable gland, and/or wherein a height of the trunking profile is between 5 cm and 20 cm, preferably between 5 cm and 15 cm, and/or wherein a width of the trunking profile, measured as a distance between the outer surfaces of the two sidewalls, is between 10 cm and 20 cm, preferably between 10 cm and 15 cm, and/or wherein a length of the trunking profile is between 50 cm and 200 cm.
As for claim 23, the elements of Ward added above further teaches wherein the trunking profile is provided with a ridge or other element (14 and 52) configured to be gripped by a tool during the assembly of the luminaire assembly for widening the open side (the ridges of 14 and 52 are easily gripped by a tool, such as plyers, thus meeting the “configured to” language).
As for claim 24, Vang teaches a plurality of assemblies (Fig. 18; paragraph 51).
As for claim 25, Vang teaches wherein the plurality of assemblies are mechanically and/or electrically interconnected (Fig. 18), and/or wherein the trunking system further comprises at least one driver with driver circuitry for driving the plurality of assemblies, and/or wherein an assembly of the plurality of assemblies comprises in its trunking profile any one or more of the following: an optical module (e.g. a light emitting or receiving means), a sensor module, a signaling module, a communication module (e.g. receiving/emitting unit), a disinfection unit (e.g. a UV disinfection unit).
As for claims 28-29, Vang, Ward, and Amrine teach all of the disclosed elements, which are assembled as claimed, thus the method is obviously taught.
As for claim 31, Vang, Ward, and Amrine teach all of the claimed elements, as is discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Starting on page 11 of the response, the Applicant initially argues that “the trunking profile of Vang does not receive the cover, since the cover is outside of the profile.” The Applicant admits that pockets 39 do receive the cover, but argues that these pockets “are clearly outside of the trunking profile and do not make part of the “open side” of the trunking profile.” Contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, the profile of the trunking profile (14) is reasonably interpreted to include the inside and outside surfaces of item 14 that make up the profile of 14. Further the Applicant’s arguments that these pockets “do not make part of the “open side” of the trunking profile” are spurious, because the claims do not require the cover to be received in the “open side” of the trunking profile. Rather, the claims require the “cover configured to close the open side of the trunking profile” and “the trunking profile is configured to be elastically flexed…in order to receive the cover”. Being that items 39 are pockets in the trunking profiled (14), it is reasonable to interpret the cover (22) configured to close the open side of the trunking profile (Figs. 1-7) and the trunking profile is configured to be elastically flexed (paragraph 45) in order to receive (within pockets 39) the cover (Fig. 7).
The Applicant further argues that Vang “merely discloses a ‘snap-fit’ of the lens 22 and trunking profile 14. The ‘snap’ is not defined in Vang, and this wording does not imply any explicit flexing” (page 11 of the response). Contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, “snap-fit” not only implies flexing, “snap-fit” explicitly teaches flexing. “Snap-fit” is reasonably defined as “an assembly method used to attach flexible parts, usually plastic, to form the final product by pushing the parts’ interlocking components together” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap-fit). The Applicant further points to Ward (column 4, lines 13-16) as teaching “snapping is clearly obtained by ‘pivoting’ (see Line 12).” This argument is taking a single line out of context. While this section of Ward does teach latch members 14, 52 are rotated in Fig. 2, this section explicitly teaches this rotation causes “as a result, the latch members 14, 52 move over the top of the lens, until the concave recess 62 mates with, and snaps onto, the mating edge 12b”. Mating edge 12b and recess 62 could not rotate into the tight connection shown in Fig. 3 without flexible/resilient movement because of the bulbous protuberance at the edge of 62 and the bulbous protuberance 12b. As is clearly taught by Ward, the rotation causes the snap-fit, rather than the rotation being the snap-fit.
On page 12, the Applicant argues that “Vang fails to disclose or suggest that the housing 14, itself, undergoes flexing.” The Applicant argues that only the lens 22 undergoes flexing and that “Vang fails to disclose or suggest elastically flexing the trunking profile.” Contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, Vang teaches in paragraph 45 that “the direct contact between these feature 39, 40, 70, 74 provides a snap-fit.” Further, Vang teaches “the nesting arrangement forces direct contact between the projections 70, the curved portions 74, and the respective surfaces of the protuberances 40...the nesting arrangement also forces direct contact between projections 70 and the pockets 39.” The snap-fit and the forces taught in paragraph 45 are clearly taught to be features of the lens 22 and features of the trunking profile 14. At minimum, Vang implies elastic flexing of the lens 22 and trunking profile 14. But what is explicitly taught, is that the lens 22 and trunking profile 14 together undergo elastic flexing. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the trunking profile 14 would undergo elastic flexing because of the teaching of paragraph 45 of Vang and the thin profile of trunking profile 14 as shown in Figs. 2-7.
The Applicant argues on page 12 that in Ward latch members 14 and 52 “cannot be considered as being part of the “profile.’” The Applicant argues that the term “profile” requires integral parts and is “implicit from the use of the word ‘profile’”. Merriam-Webster defines “profile” as “a side or sectional elevation”. Clearly, as is shown in Fig. 2 of Ward, items 14 and 52 are part of the side elevation or sectional elevation of trunking profile (14, 16, and 52). Nothing in the claims requires a trunking profile structure made of a single unitary and integral part. This interpretation also applies to the “widening the open side” argument at the bottom of page 13; and to the argument with respect to claims 6-8 on page 17.
The Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 1 “makes it explicitly clear that the trunking profile is an integral profile, since it is extruded in one piece.” Contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, the “comprising” language of claim 1 means the trunking profile must include extruded metal and does not require that the trunking profile is extruded in one piece. Further, if the Applicant wishes the entire trunking profile to be extruded in one piece to be required by the claims, then this language should be added to the claims.
As for claim 3, the periphery of the cover (12) is received into the body of the cylindrical gasket (68) making it a c-shape, thus reasonably interpreted to reach on the claim language.
As for claims 28-29, these arguments have been addressed above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM JOSEPH CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-0959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/WILLIAM J CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 10/24/2025
Prosecution Insights