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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/18/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "322" and "323" have both been used to designate the front side of the upright frame member in Fig. 5. Based on definitions in paragraphs [0099] and [0104], examiner believes that reference character “322” in Fig. 5 to be a typo that should instead read “323”.
The drawings are additionally objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second stability bar (claim 14, line 4) and bottom side-adjacent hinge (claim 16, lines 1-2) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Given these guidelines, the opening phrase “Disclosed is…” is unnecessary, as it is implied that the abstract will convey the focus of the disclosure. Instead, the abstract could start with a modification of the first sentence: “A light panel includes: a housing…”
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0001]: In the last sentence, there should be a comma after “in order for the dose potential to be realized”.
Paragraph [0013]: “lighting devices to target” should be “lighting devices used to target” or “lighting devices that target”.
Paragraph [0014]: In the second sentence, “body sized panels” should be hyphenated (“body-sized”).
Paragraphs [0020-0022]: The construction “e.g.” has not been used properly. “e.g.” should be used when the writer wants to indicate at least one but not all of the examples that illustrate the point a sentence is making. It is used similarly to “for example”. In paragraph [0020], “and panels thereon” is not an example of an angle or the upright frame member, so “e.g.” is not applicable. However, “such as at a target distance from the light panels…” could be used with an ”e.g.” as the parenthetical presents one possible place for intersection. In all cases of “(e.g., and panels thereon)”, examiner suggests simply removing the “e.g.” (occurs four times in paragraphs [0020 – 0022]). Other instances of improper use of “e.g.” are found throughout the disclosure, and the examiner has likely not noted all of them.
Paragraph [0027]: “…on the floor surface with the light panel is in the upright position” should be either “…with the light panel in the upright position” or “when the light panel is in the upright position.”
Paragraph [0055]: There is a non-standard space in the middle of the sentence that may indicate an accidental tab or formatting error.
Paragraph [0064]: “the plurality of openings 199 can be equally apart along the face side 115” should be “…can be spaced equally apart…”
Paragraph [0072]: In the sentence containing “The hinge 140 can include one or more leaves 141 having a pin hole to accommodate a pin 142 attached to the pack side of 117 …” is not grammatically correct. Examiner recommends removing the phrase “having a pin hole to accommodate a pin 142”, since that information is disclosed later in the same sentence.
Paragraph [0072]: The use of “e.g.” in this paragraph is incorrect. Examiner recommends modifying the phrase to read “.. and a pin 142, which determines the axis of rotation of the hinge 140, can extend through the pin hole…”
Paragraph [0077]: In the list of potential ratios of the extension amount to the face width, “greater than or equal to about one third of the face width FW of the light panel 100” is repeated twice in a row.
Paragraph [0077]: there is an “or” missing between the “greater than or equal to about one seventh…” and “greater than or equal to about one sixth…” phrases.
Paragraph [0087]: “the light panel support stand 300 can be configured to hold a light panels 100…” should read :”…to hold light panels” or “to hold a light panel”.
Paragraph [0091]: “e.g., with the origin of the cartesian coordinates is set…” should be “with the origin of the Cartesian coordinates set” or “where the origin of the Cartesian coordinates is set”. Further, examiner recommends removing the second “e.g.” to improve sentence clarity.
Paragraph [0100]: Based on the reference characters in Fig. 5 and 6, and the rest of the specification (e.g., paragraphs [0101-0102]), examiner believes that reference character “329” in paragraph [0100] to be a typo that should be changed to “327” (Note: this typo appears twice in paragraph [0100]).
Paragraph [0105]: “the first angle 328 and/or the second angle 329 can be from set to an angle from the reference plane RP” has extra words in it. Examiner recommends “…can be set to an angle from the reference plane RP”.
Paragraph [0106]: “…so that the light transmitted from the light panels 100 as shown in by arrows 500…” is missing the relevant figure number. Examiner recommends “as shown in Fig. 6 by arrows 500” or “as shown by arrows 500 in Fig. 6”.
Paragraph [0111]: “… the second light panel 102 can be supported by left section of the support arm 330” should be “…can be supported by a left section…”
Paragraph [0112]: “(e.g., acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polycarbonate, polypropylene, polyethylene (e.g., high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and the like), wood…” is either missing a closed parenthesis or has an extra open parenthesis.
Paragraphs [0119-0121]: The spacing between these three paragraphs does not match the spacing in the rest of the document.
Paragraph [0126]: “…to about 180 individual light emitting diodes, for example, greater than or equal to 190 light emitting diodes…” should have a semicolon in between “diodes” and “for example”. Another semicolon is needed before “for example” in the sentence “…to about 3 columns of light emitting diodes, for example, greater than or equal to about 22 rows…”
Paragraph [0126]: “a light panel 100 can refer to body-sized a light panel” should be “… a body-sized light panel”
Paragraph [0127]: “… can be staggered, for example, an element of a column” should have a semicolon or a period after “staggered”. Similarly, “element of an adjacent row, for example, element 1 of column 1” needs a period after “row”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: “where both the proximal end and the distal end are adjacent the housing” (lines 12-13) should be “…adjacent to the housing”.
Claims 5 and 14 are objected to because of the following informality: “…floor surface with the light panel is in” (line 3 and line 7 respectively) should be “with the light panel in” or “when the light panel is in”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informality: “wherein in the open position the support leg” (line 4) should be “wherein, in the open position, the support leg”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu (US 2010/0302763 A1). For clarity, bolded text indicates claim language.
[Claim 1] Chu teaches: A light panel (Fig. 17, element 10) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 15, element 60) having:
a face side (annotated in Fig. 17 below), having a face height (annotated in Fig. 17) extending along a major dimension of the housing and a face width (annotated in Fig. 17) extending along a minor dimension of the housing,
a first side (annotated in Fig. 17) and a second side (annotated in Fig. 17) at opposite sides of the face width, and
a top side (annotated in Fig. 17) and a bottom side (annotated in Fig. 17) at opposite ends of the face height;
a plurality of light emitting diodes (annotated in Fig. 17; paragraph [0025]) configured to transmit electromagnetic radiation from the face side (paragraph [0025]);
a support leg (Fig. 15, element 63) having a proximal end (annotated in Fig. 15 below) and a distal end (annotated in Fig. 15);
a hinge (Fig. 15, element 68) rotatably connecting the proximal end (annotated in Fig. 15) to the housing (Fig. 15, element 62); and
a stability bar (annotated in Fig. 15) on the support leg (Fig. 15, element 63 near the distal end), extending away from the support leg (the two elements are not parallel and thus extend away from each other),
PNG
media_image1.png
696
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the support leg (Fig. 15, element 63) is rotatable between a closed position (Fig. 16) where both the proximal end and the distal end are adjacent the housing (Fig. 16, elements 62 and 63 touch each other), and an open position where the distal end is farther from the housing than the proximal end (Fig. 15 and 17) and the light panel (Fig. 17, element 10) is supportable (Fig. 17, element 67) on a floor surface in an upright position (Fig. 17) with a weight of the light panel being distributed between the support leg and the housing (Fig. 17, elements 61, 62, and 63 bear the weight of the light panel, 10).
PNG
media_image2.png
680
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[Claim 2] Chu further teaches: The light panel of claim 1, wherein the housing (Fig. 15, element 60) includes a back side (annotated in Fig. 15 above) opposite the face side (annotated in Fig. 17) and the hinge (Fig. 17, element 68) is connected to the housing on the back side.
[Claim 7] Chu further teaches: The light panel of claim 1, wherein the stability bar (annotated in Fig. 15 above) is fastened to the support leg (Fig. 15, element 63) by one or more fasteners (Fig. 15, elements 65 and 66).
PNG
media_image3.png
689
515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[Claim 10] Chu further teaches: The light panel of claim 1, wherein the support leg (Fig. 15, element 63) has a support leg length of greater than or equal to one-half the face height of the light panel (Fig. 15 shows that the support leg 63 extends from the ground to the hinge 68 which is closer to the top side of the housing than the bottom side).
[Claim 12] Chu further teaches: The light panel of claim 1, wherein the hinge (Fig. 15, element 68) has an axis of rotation (annotated in Fig. 17 above) that is oriented substantially parallel to the floor surface (annotated Fig. 17 shows that the axis of rotation does not intersect with the floor plane) with the light panel in the upright position (Fig. 17, element 10).
[Claim 13] Chu further teaches: The light panel of claim 1, wherein the stability bar (annotated in Fig. 15 above) is configured to counter-balance the light panel (Fig. 17, the size of the stability bar would provide some weight which would provide a vertical and horizontal counter-balance for the light panel).
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Hooga HG300 Red Light Therapy Panel (referred to hereafter as the Hooga HG300). For clarity, bolded text indicates claim language.
[Claim 1] The Hooga HG300 teaches: A light panel (product title in Fig. A below) comprising:
a housing (annotated in Fig. B below) having:
a face side (annotated in Fig. B), having a face height (annotated in Fig. B) extending along a major dimension of the housing and a face width (annotated in Fig. B) extending along a minor dimension of the housing,
a first side (annotated in Fig. B) and a second side (annotated in Fig. B) at opposite sides of the face width, and
a top side (annotated in Fig. B) and a bottom side (annotated in Fig. B) at opposite ends of the face height;
a plurality of light emitting diodes (annotated in Fig. B; Fig. A, product title) configured to transmit electromagnetic radiation from the face side (Fig. A , Technical Details);
PNG
media_image4.png
1440
1298
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a support leg (annotated in Fig. B above) having a proximal end (annotated in Fig. B) and a distal end (annotated in Fig. B);
a hinge (annotated in Fig. B) rotatably connecting the proximal end (annotated in Fig. B) to the housing (Fig. B); and
PNG
media_image5.png
682
756
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a stability bar (annotated in Fig. B) on the support leg (Fig. B), extending away from the support leg (Fig. B shows that the two elements are approximately orthogonal to each other),
wherein the support leg (annotated in Fig. B) is rotatable between a closed position where both the proximal end and the distal end are adjacent the housing (the support legs would lie against the first and second sides of the housing), and an open position where the distal end is farther from the housing than the proximal end (Fig. B) and the light panel (Fig. A and B) is supportable on a floor surface in an upright position (Fig. B) with a weight of the light panel being distributed between the support leg and the housing (Fig. B, the support legs and bottom side of the housing rest on the floor).
[Claim 3] The Hooga HG300 further teaches: The light panel of claim 1, wherein the hinge (annotated in Fig. B above) includes a first hinge (annotated in Fig. B) and a second hinge (annotated in Fig. B), and the first hinge is connected to the first side (Fig. B, front view shows the first hinge on the first side) and the second hinge is connected to the second side (Fig. B, back view shows the second hinge on to the second side).
[Claim 4] The Hooga HG300 further teaches: The light panel of claim 3, wherein the support leg (annotated in Fig. B above) includes a first support leg connected to the first hinge (Fig. B, front view shows the first hinge connected to a support leg on the first side) and a second support leg connected to the second hinge (Fig. B, back view shows the second hinge connected to a support leg on the second side).
[Claim 9] The Hooga HG300 further teaches: The light panel of claim 1, wherein the plurality of light emitting diodes (annotated in Fig. B above) are configured to emit electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength of greater than or equal to about 400 nanometers and less than or equal to about 1400 nanometers (wavelengths specified in product title in Fig. A above).
[Claim 15] The Hooga HG300 further teaches: The light panel of claim 1, wherein one or more feet (annotated in Fig. B above) are connected to the bottom side of the housing (annotated in Fig. B) and are interposed between the bottom side of the housing and the floor surface with the light panel in the upright position (Fig. B front view shows that the feet are in between the ground and the plane of the bottom side of the housing).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 2010/0302763 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Loi et al. (US 8,699,213 B2). For clarity, bolded text indicates claim language.
[Claim 5] Chu et al. teaches the light panel of claim 1, but does not teach that the stability bar includes a friction surface. Loi et al. teaches “an electronic device with supporting stands … obliquely disposed on the back side of the input/output module… [and] are controlled to swing with an angle” (Loi et al., Abstract). Specifically, Loi teaches a similar light panel (Loi et al., col. 2, lines 25-29) with a hinge (Loi et al., Fig. 1, elements 211 and 221), a support leg (Loi et al., Fig. 1, elements 213 and 223), and stability bar (Loi et al., Fig. 1, elements 212 and 222). Further, Loi et al. teaches that the stability bar includes a friction surface (Loi et al., col. 3, lines 24-25) configured to be contactable with the floor surface (Loi et al., Fig. 1, elements 212 and 222) and prevent the stability bar from sliding on the floor surface (Loi et al., col. 3, lines 25-27).
Chu and Loi et al., are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of supports for a light panel. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stability bar of Chu to include a non-slip or friction surface as taught by Loi et al., so as to prevent the stability bar from sliding on the floor surface when the light panel is in the upright position. This modification would be advantageous because it would decrease the likelihood of the light panel slipping or tilting after it has been set up.
[Claim 11] As applied above, Chu anticipates claim 10, which specifies that the support leg of the light panel has a length of greater than or equal to one-half the face height of the light panel. Claim 11 recites the same limitations, but for an embodiment where the support leg includes a plurality of support legs. However, Chu teaches an apparatus with only one support leg.
Loi et al. teaches a plurality of support legs (Loi et al., Fig. 1, elements 213 and 223) that each have a length of greater than or equal to one-half the face height of the light panel ( Loi et al., Fig. 6 shows that element 223 extends from approximately the vertical middle of the housing 10 to past the bottom side of the housing; support leg 222 is a mirror image of element 223, col. 2, lines 44-45). It would have been obvious to a person have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light panel of Chu to include a plurality of support legs, as taught by Loi et al. This modification would be beneficial as additional support legs would add additional contact points between the housing and the floor, increasing the stability and balance of the light panel.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 2010/0302763 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Le Gette et al. (US 2014/0191106 A1). For clarity, bolded text indicates claim language.
[Claim 16] Chu anticipates the light panel of claim 1, but does not teach that the hinge connects the support leg on a back side of the housing adjacent to the bottom side of the housing.
Le Gette et al. teaches a “mounting or supporting apparatus [for] electronic device cases” (Le Gette et al., paragraph [0002]) that includes a support leg (Le Gette et al., Fig. 2, 6, and 7, element 270) and a hinge (Le Gette et al., Fig. 7, , element 290). Further, Le Gette et al. teaches that the hinge (Le Gette et al., Fig. 7, element 290) connects the support leg (Le Gette et al., Fig. 2, 6, and 7, element 270) on a back side (Le Gette et al., annotated in Fig. 7 below) of the housing adjacent to the bottom side of the housing (Le Gette et al., Fig. 7; paragraph [0076]) and is configured so that the distal end of the support leg rotates away from the top side of the housing when the support leg is rotated from the closed position to the open position (Le Gette et al., annotated in Fig. 7 above) wherein in the open position the support leg is contactable with the floor surface (Le Gette et al., Fig. 11 shows a different embodiment that possess the same hinge and support leg mechanism standing on
PNG
media_image6.png
427
699
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a surface).
Le Gette is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of supports for a light panel. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hinge and support leg of Chu so that the hinge is located adjacent to the bottom side of the housing and configured so that the distal end of the support leg rotates away from the top side of the housing when the support leg is rotated from the closed position to the open position, as taught by Le Gette. In this configuration, the support leg would be contactable with the floor surface, and the weight of the light panel would be distributed along a length of the support leg. This modification would increase the stability of the light panel, as shifting the hinge toward the bottom of the housing would also shift the center of gravity closer to the floor surface.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 2010/0302763 A1) in view of Loi et al. (US 8,699,213 B2), as applied to claims 1, 5, and 11 above, and further in view of Delafield (US D329,753 S). For clarity, bolded text indicates claim language.
[Claim 14] Chu teaches the light panel of claim 1, but does not teach the presence of two stability bars. Loi et al. teaches a first stability bar (Loi et al., Fig. 1, element 212) and a second stability bar (Loi et al., Fig. 1, element 222), wherein the first stability bar is on the support leg (Loi et al., Fig. 1, element 213) and extends away from the support leg (Loi et al., Fig. 1, elements 212 and 213 or 222 and 223 are shown at near right angles to each other) However, neither Chu nor Loi et al. teach that the second stability bar is connected to the bottom side of the housing, and extends in the minor dimension.
Delafield teaches a tiltable, full-length mirror that includes a housing (Delafield, outlined and labeled in Fig. 1 above), support legs (Delafield, annotated in Fig. 2 above), and hinges (Delafield, annotated in Fig, 2). Further, Delafield teaches a stability bar which includes a first stability bar and a second stability bar, the first stability bar is on the support leg (Delafield, annotated in Fig. 1 and 2) and extends away from the support leg (Delafield, Fig. 2 shows that the stability bar is nearly perpendicular to the support legs), and the second stability bar is connected to the bottom side of the housing(Delafield, annotated in Fig. 1 and 2), extends in the minor dimension beyond the first side of the housing and the second side of the housing (Delafield, Fig. 1 and 2 show that the stability bar is wider than the housing), and is configured to be contactable with the floor surface (Delafield, Fig. 1 and 2
PNG
media_image7.png
771
633
media_image7.png
Greyscale
show that the both stability bars are intendent to be positioned on the floor).
Delafield is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it solves the same problem of supporting and tilting a panel so that light is directed at a user. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light panel of Chu to include the first and second stability bars of Delafield, wherein the second stability bar includes the friction surface taught by Loi et al. configured to prevent the second stability bar from sliding on the floor surface when the light panel is in the upright position. This modification would be advantageous as it would increase the footprint of the light panel, increasing stability and decreasing the likelihood of the light panel tipping over.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hooga HG300 Red Light Therapy Panel (referred to hereafter as the Hooga HG300), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carr (US 887,767). For clarity, bolded text indicates claim language.
[Claim 8] The Hooga HG300 anticipates the light panel of claim 1 and further teaches that the stability bar is integral to the support leg (Hooga HG300, Fig. B above). However, the Hooga HG300 does not teach that the support leg includes two or more portions oppositely extended in the minor dimension beyond the first side and the second side of the housing.
Carr teaches an “easel invention… applicable to… picture frames, mirrors, and the like” (Carr, col. 1, lines 12-14) which includes a hinge (Carr, Fig. 1-3, element 10) and support legs (Carr, Fig. 1-3, element 18), wherein the support leg includes two or more portions (Carr, Fig. 1-3, element 18) oppositely extended in the minor direction (Carr, Fig. 2 and 3, element 18 has a wider bottom than it does top) beyond the first and second side of the housing to form the stability bar (Carr, Fig. 2 and 3, element 19) integral to the support leg (Carr, col. 2, lines 80-84).
Carr is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it solves the same problem of supporting and tilting a upright flat panel. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light panel of the Hooga HG300 to include the integrated support leg and stability bar of Carr. This would be advantageous as it would distribute the weight of the light panel over a greater surface footprint, increasing stability.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 2010/0302763 A1) in view of Loi et al. (US 8,699,213 B2), as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Zaidman (US D395,956) For clarity, bolded text indicates claim language.
[Claim 6] Chu in view of Loi et al. teaches the light panel of claim 5, but does not teach that the stability bar comprises one or more feet. Zaidman teaches a tiltable, free-standing, full-body mirror that includes a housing (Zaidman, outlined and annotated in Fig. 4 below), support leg (Zaidman, annotated in Fig. 4), hinge (Zaidman, annotated in Fig. 4), and stability bar (Zaidman, annotated in Fig. 4). Additionally, Zaidman teaches one or more feet connected to the stability bar (Zaidman, annotated in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image8.png
820
505
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Zaidman is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it solves the same problem of supporting and tilting a panel so that light is directed at a user. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light panel of Chu to have the support legs, stability bars, and feet of Zaidman, wherein the friction surface taught by Loi et al. includes one or more friction surfaces respectively corresponding to the one or more feet. This modification would be advantageous, as smaller, non-slip feet can easily be added to a preexisting structure, decreasing the complexity of the overall design and amount of material need to prevent sliding.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hsu (US 7,636,133 B1) teaches a flat panel display support with a hinged supporting leg with a stability bar.
Ogawa et al. (US 7,239,506 B2) teaches a stand for a display device that comprises two supporting legs with a flared stability bar.
Richardson (US 6,666,424 B2) teaches a portable writing board with a plurality of support legs connected to one hinge.
Bolta et al. (US 6,139,164) teaches a mobile light panel with side hinges to adjust the tilt.
Donnelly (US 4,500,169) teaches a tiltable mirror with multiple hinge and stand mechanisms.
D’Amelio (US 2023/0181923 A1) teaches an LED array on a wheelable platform that can be positioned horizontally or vertically.
Kiremitci (US 2012/0265275 A1) teaches an oscillating photo light therapy device with side hinges and a stability arm.
Singer et al. (US 1,892,014) teaches a picture frame with supports connected to a hinge at the bottom of the housing that allow the frame to tilt forward.
Conroy (US 733,162) teaches a support for a mirror with two sets of support legs integrated with stability bars.
Wiederer (US 253,457) teaches a mirror handle that can also be used as a support leg that hinges from the lower back portion of the housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily M Culley whose telephone number is 571-270-0560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/EMC/Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights