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 .
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, 3-5, 7-8, 10, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 2018/0091222).
Regarding claim 1, Arai teaches a light fixture assembly comprising:
a housing (20 and 30, Fig. 1) comprising a first wall (33, Fig. 4) having a first opening (the opening for 50, Fig. 4) therethrough;
a light assembly (10, Fig. 1) disposed at least partially within and coupled to the housing;
a bracket (51 and 52, Fig. 3) having a second opening (52d in Fig. 3) therethrough;
a sensor housing (51 and 52, Fig. 3) having a first portion sized (lower half of 51 and 52, Fig. 3) greater than the opening and a second portion (upper half of 51 and 52) received within the opening, the first portion having a retainer (52B-C, Fig. 3) for retaining the sensor housing within the second opening of the bracket; and
a releasable fastener (53 and 54, Fig. 3) securing the bracket to the first wall.
Arai fails to teach the second portion having a retainer for retaining the sensor housing within the second opening of the bracket.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have had the second portion having the retainer for retaining the sensor housing with the opening of the bracket, since it has been held by the courts that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Specifically in this case the retainer is on the outside of the housing and it would have been generally the same to have it attach on the inside of the housing.
Regarding claim 3, Arai teaches the bracket comprises center portion (the top of 52d where 52 is located comprising the second opening (Fig. 3), a first flange (the flange on 52, Fig. 3) and a second flange (the flange on 51, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Arai teaches the center portion disposed in a first plane (the top surface of 52 generally where 52a is pointing to), the first flange and the second flange are coplanar and disposed in a second plane spaced apart from the first plane (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Arai teaches the first plane is directly adjacent to the first wall (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Arai teaches the releasable fastener comprises a first releasable fastener (53, Fig. 3) and a second releasable fastener (54, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0076).
Regarding claim 8, Arai teaches the first releasable fastener comprises a first threaded fastener and the second releasable fastener comprises a second threaded fastener (Paragraph 0076 specifically they are screws).
Regarding claim 10, Arai teaches the retainer comprises a first tab and a second tab (51A, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Arai teaches the sensor housing comprises a Wi-Fi sensor (Paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 15, Arai teaches the sensor housing comprises an antenna (42, Fig. 3) aligned with the first opening and the second opening (specifically its aligned diagonally in a line that would pass through the two openings to the antenna, Figs. 3 and 4).
Claim(s) 2, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 2018/0091222) in view of Shah et al. (US 8915609 Hereinafter Shah).
Regarding claim 2, Arai fails to teach the releasable fastener comprises a magnet.
Shah teaches the releasable fastener (702 and 206, Fig. 7) comprises a magnet (Column 9 lines 55-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included adding the magnet of Shah to the fasteners of Arai, in order to allow for the fasteners to be held in place while fastening and to allow for the magnet to hold the device in place.
Regarding claim 6, Arai teaches the first flange is coupled to a first fastener (54, Fig. 3) and the second flange is coupled to a second fastener (53, Fig. 3).
Arai fails to teach magnets.
Shah teaches the releasable fastener (702 and 206, Fig. 7) comprises a magnet (Column 9 lines 55-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included adding the magnet of Shah to the fasteners of Arai, in order to allow for the fasteners to be held in place while fastening and to allow for the magnet to hold the device in place.
Regarding claim 9, Arai fails to teach the first threaded fastener is coupled to a first magnet and the second threaded fastener is coupled to a second magnet.
Shah teaches the first threaded fastener (702, Fig. 7) is coupled to a first magnet (206, Fig. 7) and the second threaded fastener (702, Fig. 7) is coupled to a second magnet (206, Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included adding the magnet of Shah to the fasteners of Arai, in order to allow for the fasteners to be held in place while fastening and to allow for the magnet to hold the device in place.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US 2018/0091222) in view of Harris et al. (US 2014/0001952 Hereinafter Harris).
Regarding claim 13, Arai teaches the light assembly is coupled within a bottom side wall, the bottom side wall being parallel to the first wall (Fig. 4).
Arai fails to teach the bottom side wall being parallel to the first wall.
Harris teaches the light assembly is coupled within a bottom side wall (bottom being below (to the right of) 20 in Fig. 4), the bottom side wall being perpendicular to the fist side wall (wall with 32, Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to have included moving the wifi module of Arai to a side of the housing as taught by Harris, in order to teach an alternate connection location as designed for a given application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11-12 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.
Claims 16-20 allowed.
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 a housing, light assembly, bracket. Flanges, sensor housing, magnets as specifically called for the claimed combinations.
The closest prior art, Arai teaches several limitations and their specifics as rejected in the office action above.
However Arai fails to disclose a first magnet disposed between the first flange and the first wall; and a second magnet disposed between the first flange and the first wall, and the sensor housing is removably coupled to the bracket by the first tab and the second tab as required by the claim and there is no motivation absent the applicant' s own disclosure, to modify the Arai reference in the manner required by the claims.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cook et al. (US 2018/0035187) Farmer (US 2012/0147604), and Plunk et al. (US 9163814) teaches a lighting system with sensors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T EIDE whose telephone number is (571)272-7405. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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.
/ERIC T EIDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875