DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
2. Applicant' s amendment filed on 10/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-15 has been selected for examination and claims 3 and 13 has been withdrawn from examination
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the first fixing part is arranged obliquely on the surface frame” as recited in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the first fixing part is arranged obliquely on the surface frame”. The applicant’s specification appears to fail to describe the limitation. The applicant is requested to indicate where the applicant’s specification describes the limitation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1029(a)(1) as being anticipated by HOLLAND (US 2013/0120963)
Regarding claim 1, HOLLAND discloses a new type of lamp comprising
a surface frame (400, Fig.3) and a back plate (200, Fig.2), wherein a first fixing part (422, Fig.3) is arranged on the surface frame along a length direction thereof, and a second fixing part (212, Fig.2) is arranged on an edge of the back plate corresponding to the surface frame; one side of the first fixing part is provided with a first connecting part (422, Fig.3), and one side of the second fixing part is provided with a second connecting part (212, Fig.2); the first connecting part and the second connecting part abut against at an adjacent end part in a height direction of the back plate (as seen in Fig.1, the first and second connecting part 422, 212 was considered to abut at an adjacent end part in a height direction).
Regarding claim 5, HOLLAND further discloses wherein a side of the first fixing part (422, Fig.3) abuts against a side of the second fixing part (212, Fig.2).
Regarding claim 9, HOLLAND further discloses wherein the first fixing part (422, Fig.3) is arranged vertically on the surface frame (400, Fig.3).
Regarding claim 14, HOLLAND further discloses wherein the first fixing part (422, Fig.3) is integrally formed with the first connecting part (422, Fig.3), and the second fixing part (212, Fig.2) is integrally formed with the second connecting part (212, Fig.2).
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 2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLLAND (US 2013/0120963), and in view of FANG (US 2019/0086044) and KLAFTA (US 2018/0038557).
Regarding claim 2, HOLLAND further discloses wherein upper and lower ends of the first connecting part (422, Fig.3) are connected to the first fixing part (422, Fig.3).
HOLLAND fails to explicitly disclose the second connecting part comprises a fixing structure and a folding edge structure, the fixing structure abuts against one end of the first connecting part, and the folding edge structure is folded in a state perpendicular to the fixing structure in a manner of being rolled or riveted laterally at the first fixing part to form a structure abutting against the other end of the first connecting part.
However, FANG discloses a second connecting part (2, Fig.14) includes a fixing structure (as seen in Fig.14, the “fixing structure” was considered to be the portion of the second connecting part 2 on the edge 18) and a folding edge structure (as seen in Fig.14, the “folding edge structure” was considered to be the portion 21 of the second connecting part 2 around the first connecting part 11, 18), and the fixing structure abuts against one end of a first connecting part (as seen in Fig.14, the fixing structure of the second connecting part 2 abuts against one end 18 of the first connecting part 11).
However, KLAFTA discloses a folding edge structure (10, Fig.4) is in a state perpendicular to a fixing structure at a first fixing part (2, Fig.4) to form a structure abutting against the other end of the first connecting part (6, Fig.4).
Therefore, in view of FANG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a fixing structure and a folding edge structure as taught by FANG to the second connecting part of HOLLAND in order for the second connecting part to support the first connecting part.
Therefore, in view of KLAFTA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a folding edge structure is in a state perpendicular to a fixing structure as taught by KLAFTA to the second connecting part of HOLLAND modified by FANG in order to provide an alternative folding edge structure of the second connecting part.
Regarding the “the folding edge structure is folded” and “in a manner of being rolled or riveted laterally”, the applicant is advised that, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (See MPEP § 2113. See also In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The structure necessarily present from the method is given patentable weight. In the instant case, the limitations failed to distinguish from the structure of HOLLAND modified by FANG and KLAFTA.
Regarding claim 11, HOLLAND modified by FANG and KLAFTA as discussed above for claim 2 further discloses wherein one end of the folding edge structure (21, Fig.14 of FANG) is connected to the first fixing part (11, 18, Fig.14 of FANG).
Regarding claim 12, HOLLAND modified by FANG and KLAFTA as discussed above for claim 2 further discloses wherein one end of the folding edge structure (21, Fig.14 of KLAFTA) is connected to the surface frame (11, 18, Fig.14 of FANG).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLLAND (US 2013/0120963), and in view of KIM (US 2014/0307437).
Regarding claim 4, HOLLAND fails to disclose a diffuser plate, wherein an abutting plate is extended along an inner edge of the surface frame, an abutting part is recessed in the back plate corresponding to the abutting plate, and a space for inserting the diffuser plate is formed between the abutting plate and the abutting part.
However, KIM discloses a diffuser plate (30, 33, Figs.3 and 5), an abutting plate (44, Fig.5) is extended along an inner edge of a surface frame (40, Fig.5), an abutting part (22, Fig.5) is recessed in a back plate (20, Figs.1 and 5) corresponding to the abutting plate, and a space for inserting the diffuser plate is formed between the abutting plate and the abutting part.
Therefore, in view of KIM, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a diffuser plate between an abutting plate and an abutting part as taught by KIM to the surface frame and the back plate of HOLLAND in order to support a diffuser plate for diffusing the light.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLLAND (US 2013/0120963), and in view of ENGEL (US 2007/0230193).
Regarding claim 6, HOLLAND fails to disclose a shock-proof hook provided on both sides of the back plate.
However, ENGEL discloses a hook (12, Fig.3) provided on both sides of a back plate (10, Fig.3).
Therefore, in view of ENGEL, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a hook as taught by ENGEL to the back plate of HOLLAND in order to support the back plate onto a structure.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLLAND (US 2013/0120963), and in view of HAM (US 2018/0017218).
Regarding claim 7, HOLLAND fails to disclose a power supply assembly provided on a side of the back plate.
However, HAM discloses a power supply assembly (42, Fig.4) provided on a side of a back plate (56, Fig.4).
Therefore, in view of HAM, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a power supply assembly as taught by HAM to a side of the back plate of HOLLAND in order to provide power to the light source.
Claims 8, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLLAND (US 2013/0120963).
Regarding claim 8, HOLLAND fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first fixing parts are arranged at intervals along the length direction of the surface frame.
Regarding “the first fixing parts are arranged at intervals along the length direction of the surface frame”, as seen in Figs.2-3 of HOLLAND, the lamp has a circular shape where the first and second fixing parts are arranged around the circular shape. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the lamp can have other shapes (e.g. a rectangle). As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the first and second fixing parts can be arranged at intervals along a direction (e.g. a length direction) of the lamp. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first fixing parts arranged at intervals along the length direction of the surface frame the lamp of HOLLAND in order to support the surface frame with a different shape.
Regarding claim 10, HOLLAND fails to disclose wherein the first fixing part is arranged obliquely on the surface frame.
Regarding “the first fixing part is arranged obliquely on the surface frame”, the term “obliquely” was interpreted to be slantwise. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the first fixing part can generally be arranged obliquely on the surface frame to match a second fixing part. Therefore, in view of NAME, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first fixing part arranged obliquely on the surface frame to the first fixing part of HOLLAND in order to provide an alternative first fixing part.
Regarding claim 15, HOLLAND further discloses wherein the first fixing part is detachably connected to the first connecting part and the second fixing part is detachably connected to the second connecting part.
Regarding “the first fixing part is detachably connected to the first connecting part and the second fixing part is detachably connected to the second connecting part”, it is well within one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate multiple pieces together or separate a single piece into multiple pieces assembled together. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first and second fixing part as detachable to the first and second connecting part of HOLLAND in order to provide an alternative configuration for the first and second fixing part.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2022222, US 2644556, US 20180038557, US 20150292717, US 20200256543, and US 4240853 discloses a surface frame and a backplate connected together.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES ENDO whose telephone number is (571)272-2782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 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 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.
/J.M.E/Examiner, Art Unit 2875