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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2,4-8,10,12-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claim 1, the added limitation of “wherein the lighting support structure has a substantially uniform cross-section along a length thereof, the substantially uniform cross-section defining the first mounting surface, the second mounting surface, the third mounting surface, the fourth mounting surface, and the core” is not supported in the original disclosure because nowhere in the specification does it discuss about this. The examiner performed a text search on the word “uniform” but “uniform” was only discussed for the lighting apparatus “configured to create a relatively wide and uniform canopy, and to facilitate heat dissipation therefrom, thus allowing the lighting apparatus to be in relatively close proximity to plant supports”. In addition, the examiner also performed a text search on the word “cross” and nothing in the specification discuss about a uniform cross-section for the lighting support structure as claimed. Furthermore, applicant elected figs. 1-3,6-8,11-12 and in reviewing these figures, the examiner cannot conclude that the lighting support structure has a substantially uniform cross-section along a length thereof. Figures 11-12 are the best figures to view for the lighting support structure 1152 but in these figures, nothing would lead one skill in the art to conclude that the lighting support structure 1152 is substantially uniform in cross-section, and it is even unclear what applicant meant by that. In viewing fig. 12, ref. 1152 appears to have various cross-sectional shapes with long and short rectangular ribs or protrusions and where ref. 1152 is pointing at, there is a thicker cross-section. Given the interpretation from the figures, since the specification failed to further explain the limitation, one cannot interpret the lighting support structure as having a substantially uniform cross-section along a length thereof. Thus, it is concluded that the added limitation is not supported in the original disclosure and is considered a new matter issue.
For claim 23, the new limitation is similar to above claim 1, thus, it is concluded that the added limitation is not supported in the original disclosure and is considered a new matter issue.
All other claims depending on one or more of the above rejected claims are also rejected the same.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 18, the limitations of “a third mounting surface, and a fourth mounting surf ace” are unclear because are these the same as already claimed in claim 1, to which claim 18 depends thereon, or are they additional surfaces?
For claim 19, the limitation of “a printed circuit board” is unclear because is this board the same as already functionally claimed in claim 1, to which claim 19 depends thereon, or is it an additional board?
Claim 20 depends on the above claims, thus, is also rejected the same.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2,4-8,10,12-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US 7637636 B2) in view of Chen (US 20050168985 A1) and Storey et al. (US 20170146226 A1).
For claim 1, Zheng et al. teach a lighting apparatus for a vertical growing system for plants, the lighting apparatus comprising:
one or more lighting support structures (figs. 1-3), each lighting support structure comprising:
a first side (see examiner’s illustration below) and a second side (see examiner’s illustration below) opposing the first side;
a first mounting surface (see examiner’s illustration below) and a second mounting surface (see examiner’s illustration below) disposed along the first side, the first mounting surface substantially aligned along a first axis (see examiner’s illustration below), the second mounting surface substantially aligned along a second axis (see examiner’s illustration below), wherein the first axis intersects the second axis such that the first mounting surface and the second mounting surface form a first substantially V-shaped structure on the first side with the first mounting surface oriented away from the second mounting surface (see examiner’s illustration below); and
a third mounting surface (see examiner’s illustration below) and a fourth mounting surface (see examiner’s illustration below) disposed along the second side, the third mounting surface substantially aligned along a third axis (see examiner’s illustration below), the fourth mounting surface substantially aligned along a fourth axis (see examiner’s illustration below), wherein the third axis intersects the fourth axis such that the third mounting surface and the fourth mounting surface form a second substantially V-shaped structure on the second side with the third mounting surface oriented away from the fourth mounting surface (see examiner’s illustration below),
wherein each of the first substantially V-shaped structure and the second substantially V-shaped structure is configured such that light emitted from the mounting surfaces on a respective side has a canopy spread wider than it would be if the mounting surfaces were substantially coplanar, substantially parallel, or angled toward one another (due to the V-shaped configuration, the light emitted outward wider than they would if they were substantially coplanar, substantially parallel, or angled toward one another);
wherein the first side and the second side are coupled via a core (25) and disposed on opposite sides of the core (see fig. 3),
wherein the lighting support structure has a substantially uniform cross-section along a length thereof, the substantially uniform cross-section defining the first mounting surface, the second mounting surface, the third mounting surface, the fourth mounting surface, and the core (figs. 1-2, since applicant failed to describe this limitation, figs. 1-2 of Zheng et al. show refs. 20,30,40, being the same cross-section throughout the whole length); and
a first set of light-emitting diodes (34) coupled to the first mounting surface, and a second set of LEDs (34) coupled to the second mounting surface, the first set of LEDs and the second set of LEDs structurally configured to emit light directed toward one or more plants disposed adjacent to the first side of the one or more lighting support structures; and
one or more drivers (the power source such as a standard cable and plug for fitting into a standard lamp socket per col. 2, lines 29-32; also, can be the light switch in standard household power to turn on the light) electrically coupled to at least one of the first set of LEDs and the second set of LEDs, the one or more drivers configured to control power supplied thereto (light switch to turn on/off the power), and the one or more drivers located remotely (the light switch is remote from the lighting support structures because the light switch is on a wall of a house for the user to turn on/off the power, which is remote from the actual light structures) from the one or more lighting support structures to mitigate heat transfer to at least one of the first side and the second side of the one or more lighting support structures.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
710
697
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Zheng et al. are silent about wherein each mounting surface includes a void structurally configured for engagement with a fastener for mounting one or more of an LED and a printed circuit board to the respective mounting surface; an engagement element disposed on a top end of the one or more lighting support structures, the engagement element couplable to a fixture for hanging the lighting apparatus adjacent to one or more plants.
Chen discloses a lighting apparatus for a vertical growing system for plants, the lighting apparatus (see the examiner’s illustration below) comprising each mounting surface includes a void (the void can be the hole receiving fastener 41 or the void can be ref. 33 configured to receive fastener 35) structurally configured for engagement with a fastener (41 or 35) for mounting one or more of an LED (42) and a printed circuit board (40) to the respective mounting surface.
PNG
media_image3.png
992
992
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include voids as taught by Chen that is structurally configured for engagement with a fastener for mounting one or more of an LED and a printed circuit board to the respective mounting surface in the lighting apparatus of Zheng et al. in order to further fasten the mounting surfaces and the LEDs to the lighting support structures. NOTE that the fastener, the one or more of an LED, and the printed circuit board are not being positively claimed because they are part of the functional recitation of “configured for engagement with a fastener for mounting”. Note also that Zheng et al. teach LEDs (34) and printed circuit board (32); thus, the examiner is not relying on Chen for these elements because Zheng et al. already have them.
Storey et al. teach a lighting apparatus comprising an engagement element (48,49 and para. 0027, 0039) disposed on a top end of the one or more lighting support structures, the engagement element couplable to a fixture for hanging the lighting apparatus adjacent to one or more plants (functional recitation to which the engagement element of Storey et al. can perform the intended function of be couplable to a fixture for hanging the lighting apparatus adjacent to one or more plants). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an engagement element as taught by Storey et al. on a top end of the one or more lighting support structures of Zheng et al. in order to allow the user to hang the lighting apparatus if he/she wishes.
For claim 2, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 1, and further teach a third set of LEDs (34) coupled to the third mounting surface, and a fourth set of LEDs (34) coupled to the fourth mounting surface, the third set of LEDs and the fourth set of LEDs structurally configured to emit light directed toward one or more plants disposed adjacent to the second side of the one or more lighting support structures (see figs. 1-3).
For claim 4, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 1, and further teach wherein the core is substantially hollow (see fig. 3).
For claim 5, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 1, and further teach wherein each lighting support structure further comprises one or more interstitial spaces formed between one or more of the first mounting surface and the second mounting surface (see fig. 3).
For claim 6, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 5, and further teach wherein at least one of the one or more interstitial spaces is structurally configured to allow heat to pass therethrough at least in part to mitigate heat transfer to one or more plants disposed adjacent to the lighting apparatus (functional recitation to which the one or more interstitial spaces in Zheng et al.’s lighting apparatus can and does perform the intended function of configured to allow heat to pass therethrough).
For claim 7, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 5, and further teach wherein at least one of the one or more interstitial spaces is structurally configured to permit airflow through the one or more lighting support structures (functional recitation to which the one or more interstitial spaces in Zheng et al.’s lighting apparatus can and does perform the intended function of configured to permit airflow).
For claim 8, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 5, and further teach wherein at least one of the one or more interstitial spaces is structurally configured to provide a pathway along a length of the one or more lighting support structures (functional recitation to which the one or more interstitial spaces in Zheng et al.’s lighting apparatus can and does perform the intended function of configured to provide a pathway).
For claim 10, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 1, and further teach (emphasis on Chen since he was relied on for the void and fasteners) wherein the void includes threading structurally configured for engagement with a threaded fastener (41 of Chen).
For claim 12, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 1, but are silent about wherein the first substantially V-shaped structure includes an angle of about 30 degrees between the first mounting surface and the second mounting surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first substantially V-shaped structure of Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. including an angle of about 30 degrees between the first mounting surface and the second mounting surface, depending on the desired shape of the lighting apparatus and the angle of reflection the user wishes to have, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 13, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 1, but are silent about a cover at least partially surrounding the one or more lighting support structures and LEDs coupled thereto. In addition to the above, Storey et al. teach a cover (38,40) at least partially surrounding the one or more lighting support structures and LEDs coupled thereto. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a cover of Storey et al. at least partially surrounding the one or more lighting support structures and LEDs coupled thereto of Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. in order to protect the lighting support structures and LEDs from the environment or harm.
For claim 14, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 13, and further teach wherein the cover is structurally configured to prevent water from contacting the one or more lighting support structures and LEDs coupled thereto, and wherein the cover is structurally configured to permit light emitted from LEDs to pass through the cover (para. 0032 of Storey et al., the covers 38,40 protect from water damage).
For claim 15, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 13, and further teach wherein the cover is structurally configured for sliding engagement with the lighting support structure (the cover as modified with Storey et al. are configured for sliding into the grooves as shown in fig. 8 of Storey et al.).
For claim 16, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 13, and further teach wherein the cover includes a substantially open top surface and a substantially open bottom surface (figs. 7 & 10 of Storey et al. show the covers 38,40 being opened on both ends, which any ends can be considered as top or bottom).
For claim 17, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 1, and further teach control circuitry (32 of Zheng) for LEDs, the control circuitry coupled to the one or more lighting support structures.
For claim 18, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 17, and further teach wherein control circuitry is coupled to one or more of the first mounting surf ace, the second mounting surface, a third mounting surface, and a fourth mounting surface (see fig. 1, ref. 32 of Zheng are coupled to the mounting surfaces).
For claim 19, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 18, and further teach wherein the control circuitry includes a printed circuit board (ref. 32 of Zheng is a PCB).
For claim 20, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 19, and further teach wherein the first set of LEDs and the second set of LEDs are each coupled to a corresponding PCB that is coupled to a corresponding mounting surface of the one or more lighting support structures, and wherein a third set of LEDs and a fourth set of LEDs are each coupled to a corresponding PCB that is coupled to a corresponding mounting surface of the one or more lighting support structures (as shown in figs. 1-3 of Zheng).
For claim 21, Zheng et al. teach a lighting apparatus for a vertical growing system for plants, the lighting apparatus comprising:
one or more lighting support structures (figs. 1-3), each lighting support structure comprising:
a first side (see examiner’s illustration above for claim 1) including a first engagement region having at least two mounting surfaces oriented outwardly away from each other to direct light outwardly toward plants (see examiner’s illustration above for claim 1), the at least two mounting surfaces collectively forming a first substantially V-shape structure; and
a second side (see examiner’s illustration above for claim 1) including a second engagement region having at least two mounting surfaces oriented outwardly away from each other to direct light outwardly toward plants (see examiner’s illustration above for claim 1), the at least two mounting surfaces collectively forming a second substantially V-shape structure,
wherein each of the first substantially V-shape structure and the second substantially V-shape structure is configured such that light emitted from mounting surfaces on a respective side has a canopy spread wider than it would be if the mounting surfaces were substantially coplanar, substantially parallel, or angled toward one another (due to the V-shaped configuration, the light emitted outward wider than they would if they were substantially coplanar, substantially parallel, or angled toward one another);
wherein the first side and the second side are coupled via a core (25) and disposed on opposite sides of the core (see fig. 3),
wherein the lighting support structure has a substantially uniform cross-section along a length thereof (figs. 1-2, since applicant failed to describe this limitation, figs. 1-2 of Zheng et al. show refs. 20,30,40, being the same cross-section throughout the whole length),
at least one light source (34) coupled to each of the at least two mounting surfaces on at least one of the first engagement region and the second engagement region of the one or more lighting support structures;
one or more drivers (the power source such as a standard cable and plug for fitting into a standard lamp socket per col. 2, lines 29-32; also, can be the light switch in standard household power to turn on the light) electrically coupled to the at least one light source to control power supplied thereto, the one or more drivers located remotely from the one or more lighting support structures to mitigate heat transfer to the first side and the second side of the one or more lighting support structures.
However, wherein each mounting surface includes a void structurally configured for engagement with a fastener for mounting one or more of a light source and a printed circuit board to the respective mounting surface; and an engagement element disposed on a top end of the one or more lighting support structures, the engagement element couplable to a fixture for hanging the lighting apparatus adjacent to one or more plants.
Chen discloses a lighting apparatus for a vertical growing system for plants, the lighting apparatus (see the examiner’s illustration above) comprising each mounting surface includes a void (the void can be the hole receiving fastener 41 or the void can be ref. 33 configured to receive fastener 35) structurally configured for engagement with a fastener (41 or 35) for mounting one or more of an LED (42) and a printed circuit board (40) to the respective mounting surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include voids as taught by Chen that is structurally configured for engagement with a fastener for mounting one or more of an LED and a printed circuit board to the respective mounting surface in the lighting apparatus of Zheng et al. in order to further fasten the mounting surfaces and the LEDs to the lighting support structures. NOTE that the fastener, the one or more of an LED, and the printed circuit board are not being positively claimed because they are part of the functional recitation of “configured for engagement with a fastener for mounting”. Note also that Zheng et al. teach LEDs (34) and printed circuit board (32); thus, the examiner is not relying on Chen for these elements because Zheng et al. already have them.
Storey et al. teach a lighting apparatus comprising an engagement element (48,49 and para. 0027, 0039) disposed on a top end of the one or more lighting support structures, the engagement element couplable to a fixture for hanging the lighting apparatus adjacent to one or more plants (functional recitation to which the engagement element of Storey et al. can perform the intended function of be couplable to a fixture for hanging the lighting apparatus adjacent to one or more plants). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an engagement element as taught by Storey et al. on a top end of the one or more lighting support structures of Zheng et al. in order to allow the user to hang the lighting apparatus if he/she wishes.
For claim 22, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 21, and further teach wherein the at least one light source includes one or more light-emitting diodes (LEDs, ref 34 of Zheng are LEDs).
For claim 23, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 1, but is silent about wherein the lighting support structure is formed by extrusion such that the substantially uniform cross-section extends continuously along the entire length of the lighting support structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ extrusion process to make the lighting support structure of Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. such that the substantially uniform cross-section extends continuously along the entire length of the lighting support structure, depending on the user’s preference to select various processes to mold the lighting support structure, since product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps; “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964. See also MPEP 2141.02.
For claim 24, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 1, and further teach wherein the substantially uniform cross-section further defines one or more interstitial spaces formed between one or more of the first mounting surface and the second mounting surface, the one or more interstitial spaces structurally configured to permit airflow through the one or more lighting support structures along the length thereof (see fig. 3 of Zheng, spaces between refs. 260,26, and the core area 25,22).
For claim 25, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. teach the lighting apparatus of claim 1, and further teach (emphasis on Storey since they are relied on for the engagement element) wherein the engagement element comprises a loop (49 of Storey) disposed on the top end of the one or more lighting support structures, and wherein the lighting support structure is configured to hang in a substantially vertical orientation adjacent to one or more plants with the first side and the second side each facing laterally toward a respective set of plants. However, Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. are silent about the engagement element comprises a hook. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the loop of Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. with a hook, since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results (both types of engagement element would allow the lighting support structure to be hung in a substantially vertical position). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued the following:
Amended claim 1 presently includes a single cross-sectional profile that simultaneously defines the first, second, third, and fourth mounting surfaces and the core. This is the cross-sectional profile of a unitary, linearly extruded support structure-one in which every mounting surface and the core are co-planar features of a single, consistent transverse slice taken anywhere along the length of the structure, as expressly described in the applicant's Specification.6 Zheng's assembly has no such profile-not at any plane, and not for any component. The lamp base, first heat sink, second heat sinks, and LED modules are each independently fabricated components with different and varying profiles.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the argued limitation is not in the claim. As amended, the claim limitation states “wherein the lighting support structure has a substantially uniform cross-section along a length thereof, the substantially uniform cross-section defining the first mounting surface, the second mounting surface, the third mounting surface, the fourth mounting surface, and the core”, which nothing in this limitation indicates “a single cross-sectional profile that simultaneously defines the first, second, third, and fourth mounting surfaces and the core.”
In addition, the limitation does not indicate “the cross-sectional profile of a unitary, linearly extruded support structure-one in which every mounting surface and the core are co-planar features of a single, consistent transverse slice taken anywhere along the length of the structure”.
Furthermore, as stated in the 112 rejection above, the limitation is not supported in the specification.
Moreover, even if so claimed, it is clear from fig. 1 of Zheng et al. that the lighting supporting structure is a unitary, linearly support structure similar to applicant’s argued limitation. The only difference is that Zheng et al. did not teach the process of extrusion to make the lighting supporting structure. It is clear that Zheng et al. employ some sort of molding process to make the lighting supporting structure as shown. Regardless, as stated in the above rejection, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ extrusion process to make the lighting support structure of Zheng et al. as modified by Chen and Storey et al. such that the substantially uniform cross-section extends continuously along the entire length of the lighting support structure, depending on the user’s preference to select various processes to mold the lighting support structure, since product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps; “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964. See also MPEP 2141.02.
More fundamentally, Zheng expressly discloses that "A thickness of each of the second heat sinks is gradually varied along a height direction of the each of the second heat sinks,"7 with the outer wall 43 (i.e., the alleged "mounting surface") extending "upwardly and slantwise from a bottom portion of the body portion 42, with a distance defined therebetween increasing upwardly," so that "[t]he connecting ribs have lengths which are increased upwardly."8 As such, Zheng 's second heat sinks are wedge-shaped by design, with a cross-section that changes continuously and deliberately along their height. The presently claimed "substantially uniform cross-section" is the structural antithesis of Zheng's deliberately varied-geometry wedge components.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the heat sink 40 is not considered as the lighting support structure. As illustrated in the above, the lighting support structure is shown below and does not include the heat sink 40 as argued. From this illustration, one can clearly see that the lighting support structure is uniform along its length and define the first mounting surface, the second mounting surface, the third mounting surface, and the fourth mounting surface. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the heat sink does not correlate to the lighting support structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen does not cure the deficiencies of Zheng. Chen is directed to a stationary "Light device having changeable light members,"specifically a compact decorative or indicator light device designed to sit atop a base panel (receptacle 10, base panel 11), whose primary concern is allowing LED circuit boards to be easily swapped out when individual light members fail. Chen does not teach or suggest any elongated lighting support structure, and accordingly discloses no substantially uniform cross-section that simultaneously defines four V-shaped mounting surfaces and a core as features of a single integrated profile.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because Chen was not relied on for “elongated lighting support structure, and accordingly discloses no substantially uniform cross-section that simultaneously defines four V-shaped mounting surfaces and a core as features of a single integrated profile.” Clearly from the rejection, Chen was relied on for voids on the mounting surfaces so that the user can fasten the LEDs to the mounting surfaces of the lighting support structures. Thus, applicant’s argument is not relevant to what Chen was relied on for, and thus, not persuasive.
Storey does not cure the deficiencies of Zheng and Chen. Storey is directed to a "Watercooled LED lighting system for indoor farming," 11 including a lighting housing constructed from extruded aluminum with a substantially square or rectangular cross-sectional configuration, having a first side (14), a second side (16), a third side (18), and a fourth side (20). Storey does not teach or suggest an elongated housing with a uniform cross-section along its length; instead, and critically, the cross-section that Storey contemplates is a flat rectangular profile in which LED boards (30, 32) are mounted on a flat first side and a flat opposing second side. Storey 's cross-section does not and cannot define four mounting surfaces arranged as two pairs of Vshaped structures on opposing sides of a core-the very structural configuration that is claimed. Instead, Storey 's flat rectangular cross-section defines two mutually opposing flat LED mounting faces, not four angled surfaces intersecting in opposing V-shapes. No reasonable interpretation can transform Storey 's rectangular flat-sided profile into a cross-section that simultaneously defines four V-shaped mounting surfaces and a core as claimed.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because Storey et al. were not relied on for “an elongated housing with a uniform cross-section along its length” nor “four mounting surfaces arranged as two pairs of Vshaped structures on opposing sides of a core-the very structural configuration”. Clearly from the rejection, Storey et al. were relied on for an engagement element so as to allow the user to hang the lighting apparatus if he/she wishes, and a cover to protect the lighting support structures and LEDs from the environment or harm. Thus, applicant’s argument is not relevant to what Storey et al. were relied on for, and thus, not persuasive.
Even setting aside the individual deficiencies of each reference, the proposed combinations (i.e., Zheng in view of Chen, Zheng in view of Storey, or any triple combination) provide no motivation, suggestion, or reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed structure. M.P.E.P. § 2143 requires that a proper obviousness analysis identify some reason that would have prompted a person of skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed invention does. The applicant contends that the cited art lacks any such reason or motivation.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner has provided proper motivations as to why Chen and Storey et al. were relied on for modification to Zheng et al. adding a void for a fastener as taught by Chen does not in any way make the apparatus of Zheng et al. inoperable because the void merely helps to hold in a threaded fastener to further fasten the LEDs and circuit board thereon to the lighting support structure. In addition, adding an engagement element and a cover from Storey et al. do not make the apparatus of Zheng et al. inoperable because the engagement element merely allows one to hang the apparatus and the cover merely helps to protect the LEDs from harm. These added teachings from Chen and Storey et al. do not alter the operational ability of Zheng’s apparatus whatsoever. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The proposed rejections appear to reflect impermissible hindsight reconstruction by using the applicant's own claimed structure as a template to selectively extract and combine features from references that are directed to entirely different devices and problems.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As stated in the rejection, Zheng et al. teach very similar lighting supporting structure as applicant’s invention, and Chen and Storey et al. were relied on for a void for fastener, an engagement element for hanging, and a cover for protection; thus, these are elements that are already taught and known in the art. Thus, such a reconstruction is proper and not hindsighting into applicant’s invention.
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 SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/Son T Nguyen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights