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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 28 August 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cao and Knight fail to teach or suggest at least "at least two filaments, each of the at least two filaments being attached to and/or electrically connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of protrusions at an end of the filament lamp opposite the lamp base," as recited in independent claim 1. The examiner disagrees. Knight’s filaments are attached and electrically connected to corresponding protrusions at both the end of the filament near the lamp base and the end of the filament opposite the lamp base (see Knight Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1, 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 2019/0032857 A1) in view of Knight (US 951,400).
With respect to claim 1: Cao teaches “a filament lamp (throughout reference) comprising; a lamp base (15) at least one conductor element (12+121, 42+41), each of the at least one conductor element being formed of a single, continuous length of bent conductive wire (see Figs. 2, 4) having a substantially ring-shaped frame (121, 41); wherein the conductor element lies in a first plane (see Figs. 2, 4), at least two filaments (13)”.
Cao does not teach “a plurality of protrusions formed thereon, each of the plurality of protrusions being formed by a loop of the bent conductive wire, each of the two filaments being attached to and/or electrically connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of protrusions at an end of the filament lamp opposite the lamp base; and each of the plurality of protrusions is configured to provide a surface to which a respective filament is electrically connectable, the surface of each of the plurality of protrusions is inclined with respect to the first plane”.
However, Knight teaches a plurality of protrusions (6), each of the plurality of protrusions being formed by a loop (10+11+12) of the bent conductive wire (8, 9) each of the two filaments (7) being attached to and/or electrically connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of protrusions at an end of the filament lamp opposite the lamp base (see Fig. 1); and each of the plurality of protrusions is configured to provide a surface (10+12) to which a respective filament of the filament lamp is electrically connectable (see Fig. 2), the surface of each of the plurality of protrusions is inclined (see Fig. 4) with respect to the first plane (the first plane is defined by 5).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lamp of Cao with the protrusions with inclined mounting surfaces taught by Knight in order to ensure good electrical contact (Knight column 2 lines 65-79).
With respect to claim 3: Cao in view of Knight teaches “The filament lamp of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cao teaches wherein the conductor element comprises a conductive link between each filament (see Figs. 1, 4), each conductive link being a part of the continuous length of bent conductive wire (see Figs. 1, 4), wherein a shape bounded by the conductive links is a regular polygon (see Fig. 4).
Cao does not teach that the conductive links are protrusions.
However, Knight teaches that the conductive links (8) with the filaments (7) are formed as protrusions.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lamp of Cao with the protrusions with inclined mounting surfaces taught by Knight in order to ensure good electrical contact (Knight column 2 lines 65-79).
With respect to claim 4: Cao in view of Knight teaches “The filament lamp of claim 3 (see above)”.
Cao teaches “wherein each conductive link is substantially straight (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 5: Cao in view of Knight teaches “The filament lamp of claim 3 (see above)”.
Cao does not teach “wherein each of the plurality of protrusions extends outwardly from the shape bounded by the conductive links”.
However, Knight teaches “wherein each of the plurality of protrusions extends outwardly from the shape bounded by the conductive links (see Fig. 2; 10 and 11 extend outwardly from 4+8)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lamp of Cao with the protrusions with inclined mounting surfaces taught by Knight in order to ensure good electrical contact (Knight column 2 lines 65-79).
With respect to claim 6: Cao in view of Knight teaches “The filament lamp of claim 3 (see above)”.
Cao does not teach “wherein each of the plurality of protrusions extends towards an interior of the shape bounded by the conductive links”.
However, Knight teaches “wherein each of the plurality of protrusions extends towards an interior of the shape bounded by the conductive links (see Fig. 2; 12 extends inwardly towards 4+8)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lamp of Cao with the protrusions with inclined mounting surfaces taught by Knight in order to ensure good electrical contact (Knight column 2 lines 65-79).
With respect to claim 7: Cao in view of Knight teaches “The filament lamp of claim 3 (see above)”.
Cao does not specifically teach “wherein the regular polygon is an octagon”.
However, although Cao uses a hexagon as an example, Cao teaches that the polygonal shape 41 may also be wound into a variety of planar or three-dimensional expansion portions of different shapes for connecting one end of the plurality of light bars (Cao paragraph 64).
Since an octagon lies within the general teaching Cao provides of a horizontal polygon structure (Cao paragraph 63) and Cao encourages the reader to try different shapes within that broad disclosure (Cao paragraph 64), it would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to select an octagon as the polygonal shape as an aesthetic design choice within the range of the prior art’s disclosure (see MPEP 2144.04(I), 2144.04(IV)(B), and 2144.05(I)).
With respect to claim 8: Cao in view of Knight teaches “The filament lamp of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cao does not teach “wherein each of the plurality of protrusions is formed by a loop of the bent conductive wire; and for each loop, a second plane in which the loop lies is inclined with respect to the first plane to thereby provide the surface, inclined with respect to the first plane, to which a respective filament of the filament lamp is electrically connectable”.
However, Knight teaches “wherein each of the plurality of protrusions is formed by a loop of the bent conductive wire (10+11+12); and for each loop, a second plane in which the loop lies is inclined with respect to the first plane to thereby provide the surface (plane parallel to 12), inclined with respect to the first plane (see Fig. 2), to which a respective filament of the filament lamp is electrically connectable (see Fig. 2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lamp of Cao with the protrusions with inclined mounting surfaces taught by Knight in order to ensure good electrical contact (Knight column 2 lines 65-79).
With respect to claim 9: Cao in view of Knight teaches “The filament lamp of claim 8 (see above)”.
Cao does not teaches “wherein, for each loop, the second plane in which the loop lies is not perpendicular to the first plane”.
Knight teaches “wherein, for each loop, the second plane in which the loop lies is not perpendicular to the first plane (see Fig. 2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lamp of Cao with the protrusions with inclined mounting surfaces taught by Knight in order to ensure good electrical contact (Knight column 2 lines 65-79).
With respect to claim 10: Cao in view of Knight teaches “The filament lamp of claim 1 (see above)”.
Cao teaches “wherein the conductive wire is formed of iron, copper, an iron alloy or a copper alloy (paragraph 83)”.
With respect to claim 11: Cao in view of Knight teaches “The filament lamp of claim 8 (see above)”.
Cao teaches “wherein the at least two filaments comprise at least three filaments (see Fig. 1)”.
Cao does not teach “each filament being attached and/or electrically connected to a respective protrusion of the conductor element”.
However, Knight teaches “each filament being attached and/or electrically connected to a respective protrusion of the conductor element (see Figs. 1, 2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lamp of Cao with the protrusions with inclined mounting surfaces taught by Knight in order to ensure good electrical contact (Knight column 2 lines 65-79).
With respect to claim 12: Cao in view of Knight teaches “The filament lamp of claim 11 (see above)”.
Cao teaches “wherein the conductor element provides a mechanical support for each filament (see Fig. 1)”.
With respect to claim 13: Cao in view of Knight teaches “The filament lamp of claim 11 (see above)”.
Cao teaches “wherein the conductor element lies in a first plane; and each filament is inclined with respect to, and non- perpendicular to, the first plane (see Fig. 1)”.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Knight and Feit (US 2018/0172218 A1).
With respect to claim 14: Cao teaches “a method for use in manufacturing a filament lamp having at least two filaments and a lamp base (throughout reference), the method comprising: obtaining a single, continuous length of conductive wire (12, 42); and bending the single continuous length of conductive wire to form a conductor element (see Figs. 2, 4) comprising a substantial ring-shaped frame (121, 41), the conductor element lying in a first plane (see Figs. 2, 4)”.
Cao does not teach “a plurality of protrusions; each of the plurality of protrusions being formed by a loop of the bent conductive wire, and each of the plurality of protrusions providing a surface being inclined with respect to the first plane; and for each protrusion: resting a respective filament onto the surface of the protrusion at an end of the filament lamp opposite the base; and soldering the filament onto the surface of the protrusion to make electrical and mechanical connection”.
However, Knight teaches a plurality of protrusions (6); each of the plurality of protrusions being formed by a loop (10+11+12) of the bent conductive wire (8 or 9) and each of the plurality of protrusions providing a surface being inclined with respect to the first plane (see Fig. 2); and for each protrusion: resting a respective filament (7) onto the surface of the protrusion at an end of the filament lamp opposite the base (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lamp of Cao with the protrusions with inclined mounting surfaces taught by Knight in order to ensure good electrical contact (Knight column 2 lines 65-79).
Cao does not specifically teach “soldering the filament onto the surface of the protrusion to make electrical and mechanical connection”.
However, Feit teaches “soldering (paragraph 41) the filament (151) onto the surface (see Fig. 4) of the protrusion (154) to make electrical and mechanical connection (paragraph 41)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the lamp of Cao by soldering the filament as taught by Feit due to the art recognized suitability of soldering for the purpose of connecting the filaments to the conductor element (Feit paragraph 41).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Volpian (US 1457239), which teaches a filament lamp and filament support structure.
Kiriak (US 1563999), which teaches a filament lamp and filament support structure.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875