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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 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.
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.
Claims 1, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 4228489) in view of Zhang (US 2015/0267902 A1) and Sugimoto et al. (US 20150076790 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Martin teaches “a lamp bracket wire clip structure (Fig. 1), comprising: a carrier (16) equipped with a storage groove (between 41 and 42); and a wire clip (18) hinged within the storage groove (see Fig. 1), wherein the wire clip is rotatably connected to the carrier (column 5 lines 34-42; if tightening knob 43 is required to fix the wire clip, loosening said knob necessarily allows it to rotate around bolt 55; see Figs. 1 and 4) to be in a second position out of the storage groove (see Fig. 1)”.
The wire clip (18) within the storage groove of Martin does not feature a wire hole configured for passing an electric wire through the wire hole, using a hook (45) for that purpose instead.
However, Martin’s other wire clip (18) has a wire hole (44) configured for passing an electric wire (17) through the wire hole (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 use a wire clip with a wire hole as taught by Martin’s second wire clip due to the art recognized suitability of the holed structure to guide and restrain the wire (Martin column 5 lines 23-27).
Martin does not specifically teach “rotatable between a first position for storage within the storage groove and a second position outside the storage groove”.
However, Zhang teaches a hook having the same structure as Martin’s wire clip (14) rotatable between a first position (Fig. 14) within the storage groove (118) and a second position outside the storage groove (Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the storage groove of Martin’s clip structure to allow the clip to rotate from a position outside the groove and a position in the groove as taught by Zhang in order to be able to bring the clip out when one desires to use it and put it away when not in use (Zhang paragraphs 87-88).
Martin does not teach “wherein the wire clip is positioned horizontally to enable that the wire hole guides the electric wire to pass through horizontally”.
However, Sugimoto teaches “wherein the wire clip (59) is positioned horizontally (see Figs. 3, 12) to enable that the wire hole guides the electric wire (51) to pass through horizontally (see Fig. 12)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a horizontally positioned wire clip as taught by Sugimoto in the lamp bracket of Martin in order to protect the wire from being damaged when the frame it is attached to deforms (Sugimoto paragraphs 16, 45).
With respect to claim 8: Martin in view of Zhang and Sugimoto teaches “the lamp bracket wire clip structure of claim 1 (see above)”.
Martin teaches “a lamp bracket (Fig. 1) comprising: a light mounting component (13); wherein the light mounting component comprises a horizontal light mounting position (see Fig. 1) for mounting lights (14), and the wire hole is horizontally aligned with the light mounting component (see Fig. 1)”.
With respect to claim 9: Martin in view of Zhang and Sugimoto teaches the “lamp bracket according to claim 8”.
Martin further teaches “wherein the wire clip is horizontally arranged, ensuring the wire hole guides electric wires horizontally (see Fig. 1)”.
With respect to claim 12: Martin in view of Zhang and Sugimoto teaches the “lamp bracket according to claim 8”.
Martin implicitly teaches “wherein the wire clip is further configured to enable the electric wire to follow a pitching rotation of the lamp bracket (see Fig. 1; since the wire clip is attached to the lamp bracket it, and the wire it holds, would necessarily follow any motion of the lamp bracket)”.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Zhang and Sugimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Evans et al. (US 2001/0030269 A1).
With respect to claim 2: Martin in view of Zhang and Sugimoto teaches “the lamp bracket wire clip structure” according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Martin further teaches “wherein: the wire clip comprises a rotating part (49); the rotating part is hinged within the storage groove (see Fig. 1)”.
Martin does not specifically teach “a clamping part, and the clamping part is connected to the rotating part; and the clamping part features the wire hole”.
However, Evans teaches “a clamping part (420+604), and the clamping part is connected to the rotating part (600+602); and the clamping part features the wire hole (424)”.
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 bracket of Martin with the clamp of Evans in order to be able to maintain the bracket’s position by tightening the clamp (Evans paragraph 14).
With respect to Claim 3: Martin in view of Zhang, Sugimoto, and Evans teaches “the lamp bracket wire clip structure according to claim 2 (see above)”.
Martin does not specifically teach “wherein the carrier further comprises a limiting part within the storage groove for limiting a position of the clamping part within the storage groove”.
However, Zhang teaches a limiting part (143) within the storage groove (see Fig. 3).
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 bracket of Martin with the limiting part of Zhang in order to retain the wire clip in the groove (Zhang paragraph 88).
With respect to claim 4: Martin in view of Zhang, Sugimoto, and Evans teaches “the lamp bracket wire clip structure according to claim 2 (see above)”.
Martin does not specifically teach “wherein the clamping part comprises a first clamping part and a second clamping part; the first clamping part is connected to the rotating part, with a first end hinged to a first end of the second clamping part; further comprising a locking component, located between a second end of the first clamping part and a second end of the second clamping part, the locking component configured to control locking and unlocking of the first clamping part and the second clamping part; wherein the wire hole is positioned between the first clamping part and the second clamping part”.
However, Evans teaches wherein the clamping part comprises a first clamping part (604) and a second clamping part (420); the first clamping part is connected to the rotating part (see Fig. 6), with a first end (612) hinged to a first end of the second clamping part (see Fig. 6); further comprising a locking component (440+622), located between a second end (610) of the first clamping part and a second end (620) of the second clamping part, the locking component configured to control locking and unlocking of the first clamping part and the second clamping part (see Figs. 4-5); wherein the wire hole is positioned between the first clamping part and the second clamping part (see Figs. 4-5).
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 bracket of Martin with the clamp of Evans in order to be able to maintain the bracket’s position by tightening the clamp (Evans paragraph 14).
With respect to claim 5: Martin in view of Zhang, Sugimoto, and Evans teaches “the lamp bracket wire clip structure according to claim 4 (see above)”.
Martin does not specifically teach “wherein the locking component comprises a first locking part and a second locking part; the second end of the first clamping part comprises a first mounting groove, and the second end of the second clamping part comprises a second mounting groove; a first end of the first locking part is hinged in the first mounting groove, and a second end of the first locking part aligns with the second mounting groove; and the second locking part, movable at the second end of the first locking part, corresponds the second end of to the second clamping part”.
However, Evans teaches “wherein the locking component comprises a first locking part (440) and a second locking part (622); the second end of the first clamping part comprises a first mounting groove (unlabeled groove at 610), and the second end of the second clamping part comprises a second mounting groove (442); a first end of the first locking part is hinged in the first mounting groove (see Fig. 7), and a second end of the first locking part aligns with the second mounting groove (see Fig. 6); and the second locking part, movable at the second end of the first locking part, corresponds the second end of to the second clamping part (see Fig. 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 bracket of Martin with the clamp of Evans in order to be able to maintain the bracket’s position by tightening the clamp (Evans paragraph 14).
With respect to claim 6: Martin in view of Zhang, Sugimoto, and Evans teaches “the lamp bracket wire clip structure according to claim 2 (see above)”.
Martin teaches “wherein the carrier further comprises two hinged protrusions respectively on opposite sides of the storage groove (41, 42); and two ends of the rotating part are rotatably connected to the two hinged protrusions, respectively (see Fig. 1)”.
With respect to claim 7: Martin in view of Zhang, Sugimoto, and Evans teaches “the lamp bracket wire clip structure according to claim 6 (see above)”.
Martin teaches “wherein each of the two hinged protrusions comprises a hinge (55); a first end of the hinge penetrates the hinged protrusion and a second end of the hinge is exposed within the storage groove (see Fig. 1); the hinge is rotatably linked to the rotating part (see Fig. 1)”.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Zhang and Sugimoto as applied to claims 1, 8 above, and further in view of Blaymore (US 7011435 B1).
With respect to claim 10: Martin in view of Zhang and Sugimoto teaches “the lamp bracket according to claim 8 (see above)”.
Martin does not specifically teach “further comprising: a light adjustment motor assembly, positioned between the light mounting component and the carrier, configured to at least one of pitch or yaw the light mounting component relative to the carrier, wherein the light mounting component is movably set on the carrier”.
However, Blaymore teaches “a light adjustment motor assembly (32), positioned between the light mounting component (12/24) and the carrier (14), configured to at least one of pitch or yaw the light mounting component relative to the carrier (see Fig. 7), wherein the light mounting component is movably set on the carrier (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 bracket of Martin with the motor assembly taught by Blaymore in order to be able to adjust the light with a remote control (Blaymore column 7 lines 26-38).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Zhang, Sugimoto and Evans as applied to claims 1, 6 above, and further in view of Ng et al. (US 8714779 B2).
With respect to claim 11: Martin in view of Zhang, Sugimoto and Evans teaches “the lamp bracket wire clip structure according to claim 6 (see above)”.
Martin further teaches “wherein the two hinged protrusions comprise a first hinge and a second hinge, respectively (see Fig. 3)”.
Martin does not specifically teach “the first hinge and the second hinge extend toward each other”.
However, Ng teaches “the first hinge (104 on left; see Fig. 1) and the second hinge (104 on right; see Fig. 1) extend toward each other (part 104a extends inwards; see Fig. 7)”.
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 bracket of Martin with the inwardly extending hinges taught by Ng in order to set the frictional force resisting the rotation to a desired level (Ng column 6 line 58-column 7 line 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jackson (US 3078367), which teaches a lamp and associated lamp bracket.
Fang (US 20180058673 A1), which teaches a lamp and lamp bracket.
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