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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant recites “joint” in claim 1 line 7. As currently recited, it appears that “joint” is most likely “joined”. Appropriate correction is required. The Examiner will use the term “joined”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2,10,15,16,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cai (11,821,594).
Regarding claim 1, Cai discloses a lighting apparatus (fig. 4)comprising: multiple light units (1), wherein each light unit comprises a bar housing (Fig. 4), a light source (11), a light cover(12); a first bar cover allocated for each light unit(2); a second bar cover allocated for each light unit(3), wherein the first bar cover and the second bar cover are attached on two ends of the corresponding light unit to conceal the light source in the bar housing (Fig. 4); and multiple connectors( fig. 3), wherein the multiple light units are joined by the connectors(21, 2) to form a frame light structure(fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, each light unit has a conductive electrode(22, Fig. 3, the LED light sources are formed on a panel ) for all the light units are electrically connected to an external wire to receive an external power.( After the assembly, one lighting fixture is connected to the power supply with the outgoing cable at the lamp panel. Please refer to FIG. 9, FIG. 10, and FIG. 11, col. 4, lines 47-50).
Regarding claim 10, the connector has an electrical connector module for routing electricity among the light units (Col. 9 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, the frame light structure is a rectangular shape(figs. 4, 9-11).
Regarding claim 16, more than one of the light units are selectively disposed to the same edge of the rectangular shape(fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18. the light unit has multiple segments and there are joints between two adjacent segments (figs. 3-4).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hosoki (4,998,476).
Regarding claims 3-4,Cai discloses the device of claims 1-2, but does not disclose a frame layer is disposed being surrounded by the frame light structure. Hosoki discloses a frame layer (light guide, 20) within an illuminated frame (Fig. 3) .Regarding modifying the device of Cai to have a frame layer (light guide) within the illuminated frame as taught by Hosoki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cai to have a frame layer (light guide) within the illuminated frame as taught by Hosoki since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, modifying the device of Cai to have a frame layer (light guide) within the illuminated frame as taught by Hosoki would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, especially since Hosoki teaches that an illuminated frame surrounding a light guide in order to provide a predetermined lighting to it, is old and well known in the art.
Regarding claim 5,a lateral side of the light guide plate faces to the light source of the light unit to receive an input light, wherein the input light escapes from the light guide plate from a front surface of the light guide plate.(Hosoki, 20b)
Regarding claim 7, The lighting apparatus of claim 3, wherein the frame layer is a reflective layer.(26, Hosoki, is a reflective sheet that reflects light towards the exit side)
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Araki et al .
Regarding claim 11, Cai et al discloses the limitations of claim 1.Cai et al does not disclose a control module being disposed on the connector for providing a control signal to the light source. Araki et al discloses a lighting fixture/illuminated frame (10) with a control module (16, col. , fig. 6a, “It will be appreciated that power circuitry 16 can include LED drivers, integrated power supplies, control circuitry, and the like.” The illustrated embodiment shows a first LED driver 16 electrically coupled to and configured to control a first LED array (e.g., an LED strip 30), along with a second LED driver 16 coupled to and configured to control the second LED array (e.g., an LED strip).”) Regarding placing a control module on the connector of Cai et al as taught by Araki et al , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to placing a control module on the connector of Cai et al as taught by Araki et al since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, placing a control module on the connector of Cai et al as taught by Araki et al would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application
Regarding claim 12, Cai et al does not clearly teach each light unit having a controller for controlling a parameter of the light source separately. Araki et al. discloses “ In accordance with another embodiment, the substantially flat LED panel can include a plurality of colored LEDs (e.g., LEDs having red output, green output and blue output), where the colored LEDs are configured to cooperate to produce white light when energized. In the case of a plurality of colored LEDs, the light fixture can include control circuitry that is configured to selectively energize the colored LEDs to provide light output of variable color temperature. The control circuitry also can be configured to control the intensity of the light emitted by the substantially flat LED panel, thereby providing a dimming function.”). Regarding modifying Cai et al to have each light unit with a controller for controlling a parameter of the light source separately as taught by Araki et al , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cai et al to have each light unit with a controller for controlling a parameter of the light source separately as taught by Araki et al since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, to modify Cai et al to have each light unit with a controller for controlling a parameter of the light source separately as taught by Araki et al since al would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 13, Cai et al does not clearly recite controllers of multiple light units communicating with each other to synchronize in a predetermined pattern. Araki et al discloses: “The illustrated embodiment shows a first LED driver 16 electrically coupled to and configured to control a first LED array (e.g., an LED strip 30), along with a second LED driver 16 coupled to and configured to control the second LED array (e.g., an LED strip).)” and “In accordance with another embodiment, the substantially flat LED panel can include a plurality of colored LEDs (e.g., LEDs having red output, green output and blue output), where the colored LEDs are configured to cooperate to produce white light when energized. In the case of a plurality of colored LEDs, the light fixture can include control circuitry that is configured to selectively energize the colored LEDs to provide light output of variable color temperature. The control circuitry also can be configured to control the intensity of the light emitted by the substantially flat LED panel, thereby providing a dimming function.”
Cai et al discloses multiple light units within the lighting device. Regarding modifying the device of Cai et al to have controllers of multiple light units communicating with each other to synchronize in a predetermined pattern, as taught by Araki et al , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cai et al to have controllers of multiple light units communicating with each other to synchronize in a predetermined pattern, as taught by Araki et al since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, modifying the device of Cai et al to have controllers of multiple light units communicating with each other to synchronize in a predetermined pattern would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al as applied to claim 13 in view of Araki et al and further in view of Kurvers et al (CN110100502) .
Regarding claim 14, Cai et al in view of Araki et al obviate the device of claim 13, above. Cai et al in further view of Araki et al do not clearly disclose, “ wherein one controller of one light unit receives an external command and transmits the external command to the other controllers of other light units.”. Kurvers et al, teaches a lighting device (10), in which “The example of the above FIGS. 11 and 12 relates to a first control method (" local lamp dynamic "). The second control method will now be described (which will be referred to as "dynamic" remote lamp). Examples are described. In these examples, dynamic transition behavior of the gradient pattern is at least partially directed or controlled by remote transmission and received control instruction.”. and “In particular, the controller 20 may be configured to receive color positioning information and/or light output color of the initial set, A control instruction associated with a set of one or more-color transitions to be performed for each color point in the color point pattern at each of the one or more of the sets of future time interval to interval. at each new time interval, the controller consulting the received control instruction to determine how to change the color point pattern. the color of each color point according to the instruction and based on the updated color point pattern change, the new color gradient pattern is inserted and mapped to the array of the LED The new control instruction can be received circularly in a series of additional time, interval or intermittent (sporip) – cycle”.
Regarding modifying the device of Cai et al. in further view of Araki et al with one controller of one light unit receives an external command and transmits the external command to the other controllers of other light units, as taught by Kuryers et al , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cai et al. in further view of Araki et al with one controller of one light unit receives an external command and transmits the external command to the other controllers of other light units, as taught by Kuryers et al since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, modifying the device of Cai et al. in further view of Araki et al with one controller of one light unit receives an external command and transmits the external command to the other controllers of other light units, as taught by Kuryers et al would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kim (2013/0258702)
Regarding claim 6, Cai et al does not clearly disclose the light cover of the light unit has a lens for condensing the input light emitting to the light guide plate. Kim discloses a display with at least one condensing sheet that is used to condense the light emitted from the light sources so as to provide brightness to the emitted light (Para. 0047). Regarding modifying the light cover of Cat et al with a condensing sheet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light cover of Cat et al with a condensing sheet, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, modifying the light cover of Cat et al with a condensing sheet that is used to condense the light emitted from the light sources so as to provide brightness to the emitted light would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Claim 8 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al in view of Hosoki as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Travis (8,085,364).
Regarding claim 8, Cai et al in view of Hosoki discloses the device of claim 7, above. Cai et al in view of Hosoki does not disclose that the frame layer (light guide) is foldable. Travis discloses an illuminated display, which provides a folded frame layer (light guide). (Fig. 9).
Regarding modifying the device of Cai et al in view of Hosoki with a bendable frame layer (light guide) as taught by Travis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cai et al in view of Hosoki with a bendable frame layer (light guide) as taught by Travis since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, modifying the device of Cai et al in view of Hosoki with a bendable frame layer (light guide) as taught by Travis would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al in further view of Kim et al (2017/0292683).
Regarding claim 20, and the light cover being detachable for a user to replace the light source, Cai et al does not clearly mention the light cover being detachable. Kim et al discloses a lighting apparatus that has a light cover(240) detachable from the base( Para. 0031, Figs.) Regarding modifying the light cover of Cai et al to have a detachable light cover as taught by Kim et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light cover of Cai et al to have a detachable light cover as taught by Kim et al, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). Modifying the light cover of Cai et al to have a detachable light cover as taught by Kim et al would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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 cited of record does not teach individually or in combination the limitations of claims 9 and 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANABEL TON whose telephone number is (571)272-2382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00pm -6:00pm (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, 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.
/ANABEL TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875