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, 23-25, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vang et al. (2019/0338924) in view of Ward (6,805,470).
With respect to claims 1, 3, and 4, 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).
Vang does not explicitly teach 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 (210) 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).
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 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 19, Vang teaches wherein the light source comprises a plurality of LED arrays each comprising at least four LEDs (paragraph 42).
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 signalling module, a communication module (e.g. receiving/emitting unit), a disinfection unit (e.g. a UV disinfection unit).
As for claims 28-29, Vang and Ward teach all of the disclosed elements, which are assembled as claimed, thus the method is obviously taught.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vang and Ward, as is applied to claims 1 and 19 above, further in view of Amrine, Jr. et al. (9,285,084).
With respect to claims 20 and 22, Vang and Ward tech all of the claimed elements, as is discussed above, except for explicitly teaching 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); wherein the trunking profile is an extruded metal profile, preferably an aluminium profile (claim 22).
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.
As for claim 22, Amrine teaches wherein the trunking profile (802) is an extruded metal profile (column 4, lines 4-7), preferably an aluminium profile.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “neither Vang nor Ward discloses or suggest ‘elastically flexing the trunking profile so as to widen the open side in order to receive the cover”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Vang is relied upon to teach elastically flexing the trunking profile in order to receive the cover (paragraph 45). While Ward is relied upon to teach moving the trunking profile so as to widen the open side in order to receive the cover (Figs. 2-3 and column 4, lines 13-22). Vang teaches the same type of elastic flexing of claim 1 and Ward teaches the same widening movement as claim 1, there the combination teaches elastically flexing the trunking profile so as to widen the open side in order to receive the cover.
As for claim 3, the Applicant argues that Ward teaches “the gasket 68 is clearly cylindrical in shape.” While Fig. 2 and column 4, line 17-20 of Ward do teach gasket 68 is cylindrical when its uncompressed, Fig. 3 explicitly shows gasket 68 is has a C-shaped cross section when compressed. The claim does not require the gasket to have a non-compressed C-shaped cross section. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., non-compressed C-shaped cross section) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
As for claim 4, the Applicant argues that the gaskets of Ward “cannot ‘extend [ ] over an upper surface of the cover’ and, thus, cannot extend from ‘a lower surface to an upper surface of the plate”. The Applicant has not defined the upper and lower surfaces of the cover 12 in the claims. Upper and lower is a matter of perspective. Ward explicitly teaches the light fixture 10 can be mounted to a wall or ceiling (column 3, lines 13-16). If the light fixture is mounted to a ceiling, then the perspective the Applicant is arguing rings true. But if the light fixture is mounted to a wall, then the top half of cover plate 12 is the upper surface and the bottom half of cover plate 12 is the lower surface. Therefore, 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).
With respect to claims 6-8, the Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The Examiner has interpreted mounting backet 98 as a portion of the trunking profile. The Applicant argues that “qualities of reference numeral 98 are not qualities of the alleged ‘trunking profile.’” But the Applicant has provided no language from the claim that disqualifies this interpretation.
As for claim 13, the Applicant argues with respect to end plates 25 that they have “found no mention on whether the mounting is sealed or not.” Contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, Ward is explicitly clear that the housing 16 is a sealed watertight (“watertight” seal is mentioned in ALL 4 columns of Ward’s Specification). In one such instance of Ward discussing the “watertight” seal of housing 16, Ward explicitly states that “opposed ends of the housing 16 are closed by end plates 25” in column 3, lines 5-11. Ward teaches gaskets (66 and 68) are used to create this watertight seal (column 4, lines 1-22). Being that the end of the housing is open before it is “closed” in a watertight manner by end plates 25 and gaskets 66 and 68 are used by Ward to create a watertight seal, it is obvious that end plates 25 would at minimum “cooperate” with gaskets 66 and 68.
Further, with respect to claim 13, the Applicant argues that “the Office only rejected the first alternative of claim 13 and did not provide any disclosure in Ward to reject the second alternative of claim 13.” The second alternative is not positively recited because of the “and/or” language in line 4 of claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 is reasonably interpreted as only require the first or the second alternative and both alternatives do not need to be addressed to reject claim 13.
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 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 571-272-2399. 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