Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/03/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “first and second opposing light handle ends” and . 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 Objections
Claim(s) 5 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 line 7 recites “first and second cover portion ends” which should be changed to – first and second ends of the cover portion – for clarification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollopeter et al. (US 2023/0355343) (hereinafter Hollopeter) in view of Andrews et al. (US 4,559,671) (hereinafter Andrews).
Claim 1: Hollopeter teaches a cover (10, fig. 5) for a light handle (20, fig. 5), the cover comprising:(a) a substantially cylindrical portion (70, 90, fig. 2B) having a barrel (see fig. 2B) defined by a sidewall (sidewall of 92, fig. 2B); (b) a conical portion (48, fig. 2B) disposed near a first end (top end of 90, fig. 2B) of the cylindrical portion (70, 90), at least a portion of the conical portion (top portion of 48) having a larger diameter than the cylindrical portion (see fig. 2B); and (c) an end portion (120, fig. 2B) disposed near a second end of the cylindrical portion (bottom end of 70, fig. 2B) opposite the conical portion (48), wherein a sidewall thickness of the cylindrical portion (thickness of sidewall of 92) (wall thickness of about 0.04 inch to about 0.16 inch, see para [0079])) is than a sidewall thickness of the end portion (sidewall thickness of 120) (wall thickness in the range of about 0.04 inch to about 0.16 inch, see para [0079]).
However, Hollopeter fails to teach a sidewall thickness of the cylindrical portion is larger than a sidewall thickness of the end portion.
Andrews teaches a sidewall thickness of a cylindrical portion (thickness of 20 with 38-40, fig. 5) is larger than a sidewall thickness of an end portion (sidewall thickness of 24, fig. 5) (greater thickness, see Col. 5 lines 48-51).
Therefore, in view of Andrews, 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 thickness of the end portion of the cylindrical portion to be thicker than a sidewall thickness of the end portion, in order to increase the rigidity of the cover, resist warping, and accommodate lamp handles of different diameters.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the thickness of the end portion of the cylindrical portion to be thicker than a sidewall thickness of the end portion to reduce material costs, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollopeter et al. (US 2023/0355343) (hereinafter Hollopeter) in view of Borders et al. (US 2002/0089857) (hereinafter Borders) and Sandel (US 5,465,461).
Claim 5: Hollopeter teaches a combination of a cover and a light handle, the combination comprising: (a) a substantially cylindrical cover portion (70, 90, fig. 2B) having a barrel (see fig. 2B) defined by an inwardly-facing sidewall (inner sidewall of 70, 90, fig. 2B) inside of which the light handle (20) is disposed (see fig. 5), and opposing first and second ends (top of 90 and bottom end of 70, fig. 2B), wherein the light handle (20, fig. 7A) has a radially outwardly-facing surface (surface of 20, fig. 7) against which the inwardly-facing sidewall seats and first and second opposing light handle ends (top end of 50 and bottom end of 72, fig. 7A,B) that are disposed, respectively, near the first and second cover portion ends (top of 90 and bottom end of 70, fig. 2B); (b) a conical cover portion (48, fig. 2B) disposed near the first end (top end of 90, fig. 9B) of the cylindrical cover portion (70, 90) over a base of the light handle (base of 20, fig. 7A), at least a portion of the conical cover portion (top portion of 48, fig. 2B) having a larger diameter (see fig. 2B) than the cylindrical cover portion (70, 90); and (c) an end cover portion (120, fig. 2B) disposed near the second end of the cylindrical cover portion (70, 90) opposite the conical cover portion (48) and a light switch (80, fig. 5) at a the second end of the light handle (bottom end of 72, fig. 7A), wherein a diameter of at least some of the inwardly-facing sidewall (diameter of 48 at corner of 90, fig. 7A) is smaller than a diameter of the radially outwardly-facing surface(outer diameter of 20, fig. 7A) of the second light handle end (bottom end of 72) upon which the at least some of the inwardly facing sidewall seats (inner sidewall of 70, 90), whereby the at least some of the inwardly-facing sidewall (inner sidewall of 70, 90) near the end cover portion (120) stretches (silicone rubber material of 120 capable of stretching, see para [0078]) and grips the diameter light handle (handle has a diameter if the material has to be stretched over the it) near the light switch (80) when the cover (10) is positioned with the second end of the light handle (bottom end of 20) in the second end of the cylindrical cover portion (bottom end of 70).
However, Hollopeter fails to teach the end portion adjacent the light switch of the light handle, and the end cover portion stretches and grips the larger diameter light handle.
Borders teaches a cylindrical portion (66, fig. 2) with an end portion (lower portion of 66, fig. 2) adjacent a light switch (74, fig. 2) of a light handle (see fig. 2).
Sandel teaches an end cover portion (28, fig. 1) stretches and grips the larger diameter light handle (18, fig. 7).
Therefore, in view of Borders, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a light switch at the end portion where the end portion adjacent the light switch of the light handle, in order to allow improved control and easy access to the switch [Borders, 0001].
Therefore, in view of Sandel, 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 dimensions of either the light handle of the end cover portion where the end cover portion stretches and grips the larger diameter light handle, in order to improve the fit of the cover onto the handle.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollopeter et al. (US 2023/0355343) in view of Borders et al. (US 2002/0089857) and Sandel (US 5,465,461) as applied to claim(s) 5 above, and further in view of Andrews et al. (US 4,559,671) (hereinafter Andrews).
Claim 8: Hollopeter teaches a sidewall thickness of the cylindrical portion (thickness of sidewall of 92) is than a sidewall thickness of the end portion (sidewall thickness of 120).
Andrews teaches a sidewall thickness of a cylindrical portion (thickness of 20 with 38-40, fig. 5) is larger than a sidewall thickness of an end portion (sidewall thickness of 24, fig. 5) (greater thickness, see Col. 5 lines 48-51).
Therefore, in view of Andrews, 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 thickness of the end portion of the cylindrical portion to be thicker than a sidewall thickness of the end portion, in order to increase the rigidity of the cover, resist warping, and accommodate lamp handles of different diameters.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the thickness of the end portion of the cylindrical portion to be thicker than a sidewall thickness of the end portion to reduce material costs, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4 and 5 has/have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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