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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment, filed on January 2 of 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 14 and 20 have been amended. Claim 17 has been cancelled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 14 and 20 being independent.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification have overcome the objections detailed in sections 2 and 3 of the previous Office Action (mailed October 1, 2025).
Claim Objections
Independent claim 14 is objected to because it fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation "the first bridge" (see line 9).
The cited lack of antecedent instances do not amount to indefinitiveness under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, since is readily apparent, in light of the originally filed description and drawings, that the cited claim is attempting to refer back to the previously recited “bridge” defined as part of the “first track” (see line 2).
However, appropriate correction is required to place the claims in proper form for allowance (see propose amendment below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Dependent claim 21 is indefinite as it is not clear if the recitation “the cable is in the form of a wire, a rigid stem, or a set of mounting hardware” is attempting to define the “cable” as simply having the shape (e.g., “form”) of a wire, rigid stem, or mounting hardware; or the “cable” as including a wire, rigid stem, or mounting hardware. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, claim 21 as attempting to define the “cable” as having a wire, rigid stem, or a set of mounting hardware.
Proposed Claim Amendments
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims as indicated below. The applicant is advised that, if the proposed amendments are accepted, all claims must be carefully reviewed to reflect and/or accommodate the new language.
CLAIM 14. A modular light fixture, comprising:
a first track having a first gap defined by a first rail, a second rail, and a first bridge;
a second track having a second gap defined by a third rail, a fourth rail, and a second bridge;
a track connector having a plate with a top face, a first tapered edge, a second tapered edge and a tab that protrudes perpendicularly away from the top face of the plate; and
a first geometric profile has one or more walls, wherein an opening is defined by the one or more walls, wherein the first bridge extends at least partially into the opening.
CLAIM 21. The modular light fixture of claim 1, wherein the cable is having a wire, a rigid stem, or a set of mounting hardware.
Claim Rejections Based on Prior Art
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ROUTH (U.S. Pat. 3,529,275).
PNG
media_image1.png
495
1259
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of U.S. Pat. 3,529,275 (ROUTH), simplified and annotated to clearly reference claimed structural elements and features.
Regarding independent claim 1, ROUTH discloses a modular light fixture (as seen in Figure 1) including a first track 11 (as seen in Figure 1) having an upper surface (upper surface of element 11, as seen in Figure 1), a lower surface (lower surface of element 11, as seen in Figure 1), and a gap (space between elements 21 and 22, as seen in Figure 1);a cable 86 (as seen in Figure 1) configured to attach at least the first track 11 (as seen in Figure 1) to a support structure (see lines 52-59 of column 4); a cable coupler 13 (as seen in Figure 1) configured to couple to the cable 86 and to reside at least partially within the gap (as seen in Figure 1); a first geometric profile 16 (as seen in Figure 6) fastened to the lower surface of the track 11 (as seen in Figure 6), the geometric profile 16 housing a light source (see lines 26-29 of column 2), wherein the first track 11 is at least partially received within the first geometric profile 16 (as seen in Figure 5); a track connector 12 (as seen in Figure 1) having a first end (left end of element 12, as seen in Figure 1) and a second end (right end of element 12, as seen in Figure 1), the track connector 12 being configured to fit within the gap in the first track 11 (as seen in Figure 1) with the first end in the gap of the first track 11 (as seen in Figure 1); and a second track 11’ (as seen in Figure 1) having a second gap (space between element 21 and 22, as seen in Figure 1), wherein the second end of the track connector 12 fits within the second gap (as seen in Figure 1), the first and second tracks 11/11’ are aligned (as seen in Figure 1), and a second geometric profile 16 (as seen in Figure 6) is secured to the second track 11’ (as seen in Figure 6).
Regarding independent claim 2, ROUTH further discloses the gap splits the upper surface along its length (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding independent claim 3, ROUTH further discloses the cable coupler 13 is configured to slide within the gap of the first track 11 or the gap of the second track 11’ (as evidenced by Figure 1); and the cable coupler 13 is permitted to slide along the gap of the first track 11 or the gap of the second track 11’ when unsecured to adjust a position of the cable coupler 13 relative to the first track 11 or the second track 11’ and to hold a specific position when secured (how deep element 13 goes into element 11/11’ capable of being adjusted, as evidenced by Figure 1).
Regarding independent claim 9, ROUTH further discloses the track connector 12 is T-shaped (as seen in Figure 1) and includes a plate 42 (as seen in Figure 1) having a top face (top face of element 42, as seen in Figure 1) and one or more tapered edges (edges including element 46, as seen in Figure 1); a tab 43 (as seen in Figure 1) that protrudes perpendicularly away from the top face of the plate 42 (as seen in Figure 1); and one or more notch 46 (as seen in Figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
464
697
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 of U.S. Pat. 3,529,275 (ROUTH), simplified and annotated to clearly reference claimed structural elements and features.
Regarding independent claim 10, ROUTH further discloses at least one of the first or second geometric profiles 16 comprises an angled end (lateral ends of element 16, as seen in Figure 6); and the alignment with the other of the first or second geometric profiles (as evidenced by Figure 6), and a corresponding track connector 12 provides an angled modular light fixture (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding independent claim 12, ROUTH further discloses the first track 11 having a first rail (left side of element 11, as seen in Figure 1), a second rail (right side of element 11, as seen in Figure 1), and a bridge (horizontal portion of element11, as seen in Figure 1) that together define the gap (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding independent claim 13, ROUTH further discloses the first rail and the second rail each have one or more hole (as seen in Figure 1), and the hole is configured to receive a fastener 37/38 (as seen in Figure 5) to secure the first geometric profile 16 (see lines 66-72 of column 2).
Regarding independent claim 21 (as best understood), ROUTH further discloses the cable is in a form of a wire 86 (as seen in Figure 1), a rigid stem, or a set of mounting hardware (see lines 52-59 of column 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 and 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 4-8 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:
In a first embodiment, applicant teaches a modular light fixture including first and second tracks, each including corresponding pair of rails and a bridge; a track connector having a plate with a top face, first and second tapered edges, and a tab extending perpendicularly from the top face; and a first geometric profile with at least one wall and an opening defined by the walls. The bridge of at least one of the first and second tracks extending at least partially into the opening.
In a second embodiment, applicant teaches a modular light fixture including first and second geometric profiles of a generally uniform cross-section and with a hollow interior; a light source provided in each of the geometric profiles; and a spacer coupled to and between the geometric profiles. The spacer includes a flanged substantially matching the exterior dimension of the geometric profiles; and first and second plugs, each plug extending towards and coupled to a corresponding one of the geometric profiles and at least partially residing in a corresponding hollow interior.
While the use and advantages of modular light fixtures, specifically those including at least one geometric profile with a light source, are old and well known in the art (as evidenced by the documents already made of record), no prior art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all of the features of the applicants’ invention, specifically the bridge/spacer structure and arrangement, in combination with the other recited structural limitations of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed January 2 of 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ROUTH (U.S. Pat. 3,529,275), the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all the features of the claimed invention, specifically the “first track” being at least partially received within the “first geometric profile”.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-13 and 21, the applicant present no arguments, except stating that such claims depend directly, or indirectly, from independent claim 1, and would be allowable when/if the independent claim is allowed. Applicant’s failure to distinctly and specifically traverse such rejections, as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b), has been interpreted as an admission that the individual features added by claims 2-13 and 21 fail to further distinguish the subject matter defined by the independent claims over the Prior Art already made of record.
In response to applicant’s arguments that ROUTH (U.S. Pat. 3,529,275) failed to disclose individually the “first track” being at least partially received within the “first geometric profile”, the applicant is respectfully advised that while the claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004).
In this case, ROUTH (as previously detailed) discloses a modular light fixture (as seen in Figure 1) including a first track 11 (as seen in Figure 1) and a first geometric 16 (as seen in Figure 6) fastened to the lower surface of the track 11 (as seen in Figure 6), the geometric profile 16 housing a light source (see lines 26-29 of column 2), wherein the first track 11 is at least partially received within the first geometric profile 16.
PNG
media_image3.png
356
838
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 extension fee 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 ISMAEL NEGRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk Lee, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ISMAEL NEGRON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875