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 11/23/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-12 is/are pending. Claim(s) 13-15 has/have been cancelled.
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) 1-4 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 8,353,080) in view of Wu (US 2007/0147024).
Claim 1: Huang teaches a cylinder umbrella light, comprising: an umbrella disc body (13, 30, fig. 1); and a downlight (5, fig. 1) or a camera; wherein a lower end of the umbrella disc body (13, 30) is provided with a mounting groove (14, 16, figs. 1-5); a first limiting blocks (35, fig. 1) are provided spaced apart on an inner wall of the mounting groove (see figs. 7 and 8); the downlight (5) or the camera is provided in (33 inserted into 14, 16) the mounting groove (14, 16); and the downlight (5) or the camera is detachably connected (33 can be unthreaded) to the mounting groove (14, 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
639
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Huang fails to teach a plurality of first limiting blocks, the downlight or the camera is provided with a second limiting block; and the second limiting block is configured to cooperate with the first limiting block to fix the downlight or the camera in the mounting groove.
Wu teaches a disc body (1, 2, fig. 1), a lower end of the disc body (bottom of 1, 2) provided with a mounting groove (groove between LB1, see annotated fig. 3), a plurality of first limiting blocks (LB1, see annotated fig. 3) are provided spaced apart (see fig. 1) on an inner wall of the mounting groove (inner wall of 1, fig. 3).a second limiting block (LB2, see annotated fig. 3); and the second limiting block (LB2) is configured to cooperate with a first limiting block (LB1) to fix the down light (3, fig. 3) or the camera in the mounting groove (groove between LB1, see annotated fig. 3).
Therefore, in view of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add additional first limiting blocks and a second limiting block to the downlight where the second limiting block is configured to cooperate with the first limiting block to fix the downlight or the camera in the mounting groove, in order to further enhance stability of the body.
Claim 2: Huang teaches he downlight (5, fig. 1) comprises a lamp panel (56, fig. 1) and a fixing ring (55, fig. 1); the lamp panel (5) is detachably mounted on the fixing ring (55).
However, Huang fails to teach the fixing ring is provided with the second limiting block; and the second limiting block is configured to cooperate with the first limiting block to fix the downlight in the mounting groove.
Wu teaches downlight comprises a lamp panel (3, fig. 1) and a fixing ring (ring under 4, fig. 1), the lamp panel (32, fig. 1) is detachably mounted on the fixing ring (bottom ring under 4, fig. 1); the fixing ring is provided with a second limiting block (blocks of ring under 4, fig. 1); and the second limiting block is configured to cooperate with the first limiting block to fix the downlight in the mounting groove (ring under 4 cooperates with 1 to fix 3, fig. 1).
Therefore, in view of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add additional a second limiting block to the fixing ring where the second limiting block is configured to cooperate with the first limiting block to fix the downlight in the mounting groove, in order to further enhance stability of the body.
Claim 3: Huang teaches the downlight (5, fig. 1) further comprises a lens (54, fig. 1); a flange (flange of 54, fig. 3) is provided on an edge of the lens (edge of 54); the lens (54)is configured to be clamped into an annular opening of the fixing ring (55) through the flange (see fig. 3); and a lower end of the lens is configured to protrude from the annular opening of the fixing ring (see fig. 3).
Claim 4: Huang teaches the fixing ring (55) is provided with a positioning post (protruding annular portion of 55 fixing 54, fig. 3).
Claim 7: Huang teaches a connecting member (40, fig. 1) is provided at an upper end of the umbrella disc body (13, fig. 1); and the connecting member (40) is configured to connect the umbrella disc body to an umbrella pole (umbrella handle, see Abstract).
Claim 8: Huang fails to teach an upper end of the connecting member is provided with a tapered surface.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the upper end of the connecting member to be provided with a tapered surface to connect the disc body to differently shaped umbrellas, since it has been held that the configuration of the XXX was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 9: Huang teaches a plurality of notches (34, fig. 1) are provided at an edge of the umbrella disc body (edge of 31, fig. 1); and each of the plurality of notches (34) is provided with an articulating member (20, fig. 1).
Claim 10: Huang teaches the lens is hemispherical (54, fig. 3).
Claim 11: Huang teaches the first limiting block is strip-shaped (see fig. 1); and the plurality of first limiting blocks are transversely arranged along a circumferential direction of the mounting groove (see figs. 7-8).
However, Huang fails to teach a plurality of first limiting blocks.
Wu teaches a plurality of first limiting blocks (blocks on bottom ring under 4, fig. 1) are provided spaced apart on an inner wall of the mounting groove (inner wall of groove of ring under 4, fig. 1), each of the plurality of first limiting blocks is strip-shaped (see fig. 1).
Therefore, in view of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add additional first limiting blocks, in order to further enhance stability of the body.
Claim 12: Huang teaches a battery (52, fig. 3) fixedly disposed in the umbrella disc body (1); wherein the lamp panel (56, fig. 3) is electrically connected to the battery (52).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken as a whole does not show nor suggest the camera comprises a fixing seat, a rotating seat, and a turnable lens; the fixing seat is fixedly provided with a second limiting block; the second limiting block is configured to cooperate with the first limiting block to fix the fixing seat in the mounting groove; the rotating seat is rotationally connected to the fixing seat; and the turnable lens is rotationally connected to the rotating seat with respect to claim(s) 5, as specifically called for in the claimed combinations.
Claim(s) 6 is/are dependent upon claim(s) 5 and is/are therefore allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the guide 35 of Huang is for motion-guiding and range-limiting mechanism and the applicants first limiting block serves a fixation function, the examiner notes that although the function might be different, the claims do not reflect how the functions are distinguished. Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “fix and lock the functional module”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the examiner notes that Wu teaches a plurality of first limiting blocks are provided spaced apart on an inner wall of the mounting groove.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Huang completely fails to disclose the core concept of limiting blocks cooperating to achieve fixation”, the examiner notes that the combination of Huang in view of Wu would disclose the concept of limiting blocks cooperating to achieve fixation. The examiner notes, applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding applicant’s argument “Wu fails to describe “limiting blocks” and discloses a structurally different assembly”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the limiting blocks of Wu are intended to fix all of the components together. Regarding applicants argument that “the position on the outer wall of the central rod is structurally and functionally distinct from the claimed invention, where the first limiting blocks are disposed on an inner wall of the mounting groove at the lower end of the umbrella disc body”, the examiner notes that in figure 3 of Wu the limiting blocks LB1 are located on the wall of 1 which is internal with respect to the body 2 and therefore can be considered to be disposed on an inner wall of the mounting groove. The examiner notes that the claims do not further distinguish how the limiting blocks extend with respect to the body.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Combining Wu's "a plurality of limiting Blocks" with Huang lacks motivation and creates technical obstacles”, the examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The examiner notes that the introduction of additional fixing block would help in further restricting and limiting the range of rotation and would not disable the core functionality of Huang. For instance, an additional block could be introduced to the opposite end where the depressions are placed to further limit the range of rotation.
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.
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