DETAILED ACTION
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 1-6, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgitsis (U.S. 7,950,821) in view of Anderson (U.S. 2013/0107524) and Paine (U.S. 8,974,102).
Regarding claim 1, Georgitsis teaches a light fixture (see fig. 9) comprising:
a housing (housing 105) comprising a main portion including an opening through which light is emitted and a support portion, wherein the support portion is rigidly connected to the main portion opposite the opening (integrally formed);
a light assembly (light module 106) comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes (104) supported on an LED board (cpcb154), the LED board supported in the housing (see fig. 9);
a plurality of optics (focusing lenses 156), wherein each optic is positioned adjacent an associated LED of the LED board (see fig. 9, one to one); and
a holder body (lens positioners 158) positioned within the housing, wherein the holder body comprises a plurality of recesses and each recess supports an optic (see fig. 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
974
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Georgitsis does not teach that the support portion is rigidly affixed to the main portion.
Paine teaches that the housing (see fig. 3) is separated into a main portion (housing 104) and a support portion (bracket 128), wherein the support portion is rigidly affixed to the main portion opposite the opening (see fig. 2, 3, 128 is fixed attached via 300).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the main portion and support portion of Georgitsis separable and fixedly connected as taught by Paine to support grater mounting options and provide maximum adjustment, see col. 4 of Paine.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “opposite the opening” is not specific on a frame of reference or angle. Both Georgitsis and Paine teaches that the support portion is generally placed opposite the opening, i.e. on the back instead of the front. The Examiner additionally notes that rearranging said support portion of Georgitsis and Paine to be directly opposite the opening would be an obvious rearrangement of parts that does not materially affect operation of the device.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation of a structure into separable pieces does not render the claimed invention nonobvious over the prior art if there are any desirable reasons to make the structure separable. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Georgitsis and Paine does not teach a support member positioned in the main portion of the housing, wherein the LED board is connected to the support member and the holder body secured to the support member positioned within the housing by a plurality of fasteners.
Anderson teaches a support member (thermally conductive pad 32) positioned in the housing (see p. 0028, between pcb and casting 33), wherein the LED board is connected to the support member and the holder body secured to the support member positioned within the housing by a plurality of fasteners (connected via 34, 36 see p. 0029).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a thermally conductive pad as taught by Anderson to help distribute the heat and increase cooling for the PCB and LEDs of Georgitsis, as established by Anderson (see p. 0027).
The combination of Georgitsis and Anderson results in the conductive pad of Anderson being located directly behind the board of Georgitsis, i.e. in the main portion.
Regarding claim 2, Georgitsis and Paine teaches further comprising: a support arm (132 and associated structure of Paine, see fig. 3) operably connected to the support portion of the housing and configured to support the light fixture on a surface (connects via brackets).
Regarding claim 3, Georgitsis teaches that the main portion comprises an opening through which light is emitted from the plurality of LEDs (see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Georgitsis teaches that the plurality of optics comprises total internal reflection (TIR) optics (TIR optics, see fig. 17), wherein each TIR optic comprises one end positioned adjacent an associated LED of the LED board and a second end through which light is output (see fig. 17).
Regarding claim 5, Georgitsis teaches that each recess comprises a shape which is substantially similar to the shape of the outer surface of an optic (see fig. 18).
Regarding claim 6, Georgitsis teaches that each recess has a substantially frustoconical shape (see fig. 18, substantially frustoconical, see co. 16 lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 18, Paine teaches that the support portion has a shorter length than the main portion (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Georgitsis and Anderson teach comprising an electrical connector (111 of Georgitsis, 13 of Anderson) positioned proximate an end of the support member (positioned near the end of the housing, and proximate to the end of the support member).
Claims 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgitsis in view of Anderson and Paine, further in view of Dalsgaard (U.S. 8,801,225).
Regarding claim 7, Georgitsis teaches that the holder body comprises a retention feature (central hole).
Georgitsis does not teach the retention feature adjacent each recess.
Dalsgaard teaches a retention feature adjacent each recess (see fig. 8, resilient fingers 803).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a retention feature for each recess to individually mount and secure the lenses of Georgitsis to the holder, enabling singular removal and individual arrangement of the lenses. Additionally the snap fit of Dalsgaard removes the need for the additional fastener 170, and provides a desired toolless assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Dalsgaard teaches that the retention feature comprises a snap fit feature, wherein each fit feature secures an associated optic (protruding flange 807 snaps into resilient fingers 803, see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Dalsgaard teaches each optic comprises the complementary feature for engaging the retention feature (protruding flange 807).
Regarding claim 10, Dalsgaard teaches that that each complementary feature provides a snap fit feature between each recess and an associated optic (see fig. 8, snap fit between 807 and 803).
Claims 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgitsis in view of Anderson, further in view of Sue (U.S. 10,794,580).
Regarding claim 20, Georgitsis and Anderson does not teach comprising an end plate for covering the electrical connector when the electrical connector is not in use.
Sue teaches an end plate for covering the electrical connector when the electrical connector is not in use (cover 116, cover quick plug port when not connected, see col. 3 lines 44-57).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used two electrical connection ports as taught by Sue to enable Georgitsis and Anderson to be daisychained, enabling multiple lighting fixture be directly connected in series. Such use would use the end plate of Sue to prevent internal damage from unused power ports.
Alternatively, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the plate of Sue to seal the input port of Georgitsis and Anderson when not used, preventing internal damage from an unused power port.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
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, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875