DETAILED ACTIONDETAILED 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on March 12 of 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's preliminary amendment, filed concurrently with the instant application on March 12 of 2025, has been entered. Claims 5-8, 10, 12 and 14-16 have been amended. No claim has been cancelled, or added. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 12 and 17 being independent.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language and format of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In certain patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or use thereof. If the new technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the abstract should mention by way of example the preferred modification or alternative.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
(2) if an article, its method of making;
(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
(5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because includes phrases which could be implied, uses phraseology often used in patent claims, and fails to concisely describe the subject matter of applicant’s invention. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the originally filed abstract as indicated below.
ABSTRACT. includes a support extending along an axis from a first end to a second end, and a lighting assembly coupled to the second end of the support. The lighting assembly defines a light emitting face facing the support and including a fixed optical assembly and a rotatable optical assembly, such that lighting distribution of the lighting assembly varies according to rotational position of the rotatable optical assembly.
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.
Claims 8, 9 and 11 are 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 8 is indefinite as it is not clear, from the language of the claim, whether the recited “locking mechanism” is a required structural element of the claimed invention, or simply an external structure the “rotational optical assembly” is intended to be coupled to. 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, that the “locking mechanism” is a required structural element of the claimed invention.
Dependent claim 9 is rejected at least for their dependency on indefinite dependent claim 8, as detailed above.
Dependent claim 11 is indefinite as it is not clear, from the language of the claim, whether the recited “one or more vertically extending arms” is a required structural element of the claimed invention, or simply an external structure the “lighting assembly” is intended to be coupled to. 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, that the “one or more vertically extending arms” is a required structural element of the claimed invention.
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 8. The lighting fixture of claim 1, further comprising a locking mechanism configured to secure
CLAIM 11. The lighting fixture of claim 1, further comprising one or more vertically extending arms configured to couple the
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 1-5, 7-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DUGUAY et al. (U.S. Pat. 8,025,428).
Regarding independent claim 1, DUGUAY et al. discloses a lighting fixture (as seen in Figure 1) including a support (vertical standard, as seen in Figure 1) extending along an axis (vertical axis, as seen in Figure 1) from a first end (bottom end, as seen in Figure 1) to a second end (top end, as seen in Figure 1); and a lighting assembly 12/88 (as seen in Figures 1 and 11) coupled to the second end of the support (as seen in Figure 1), the lighting assembly 88 having a light emitting face (bottom surface of element 58, as seen in Figure 11) including a fixed optical assembly 56 (left side element 56, as seen in Figure 11) and a rotatable optical assembly 56 (right side element 56, as seen in Figure 11), wherein the light emitting face faces the support (as seen in Figure 11), and a lighting distribution of the lighting assembly varies according to the rotational position of the rotatable optical assembly 56 (rotating right side element 56 would change the illumination output of the element 88, as evidenced by Figure 11).
Regarding dependent claim 2, DUGUAY et al. further discloses the rotatable optical assembly 56 provides an asymmetric lighting distribution (the light output of element 88 is skewed to the left, as evidenced by Figure 11).
Regarding dependent claim 3, DUGUAY et al. further discloses the lighting distribution of the lighting assembly 88 is substantially symmetric (the rotational position of right side element 56 can be adjusted to provide a symmetric output, as evidenced by Figure 11).
Regarding dependent claim 4, DUGUAY et al. further discloses the fixed optical assembly 56 and the rotatable optical assembly 56 each have asymmetric lighting distributions (elements 16 as provided at an angle to element 56, as evidenced by Figure 11).
Regarding dependent claim 5, DUGUAY et al. further discloses the lighting distribution of the lighting assembly 88 is asymmetric (as seen in Figure 11).
Regarding dependent claim 7, DUGUAY et al. further discloses the rotational position of the rotatable optical assembly 56 is adjustable in 5-180 degree increments (the rotational position of right side element 56 can be adjusted in the cited increments, as evidenced by Figure 11).
Regarding dependent claim 8 (as best understood), DUGUAY et al. further discloses the rotational position of the rotatable optical assembly 56 is secured by a locking mechanism 90 (as seen in Figure 11).
Regarding dependent claim 9 (as best understood), DUGUAY et al. further discloses the rotatable optical assembly 56 is vertically displaceable to disengage the locking mechanism 90 (right side element 56 can moved vertically downward to disengage from element 90, as evidenced by Figure 11).
Regarding dependent claim 10, DUGUAY et al. further discloses rotatable optical assembly includes an array of light emitting diodes (LEDs) 16 (as seen in Figure 11) and one or more optical elements covering the LEDs 16 (cover lenses of each element 16, as seen in Figure 11).
Regarding dependent claim 11 (as best understood), DUGUAY et al. further discloses lighting assembly 88 is coupled to the second end of the support by one or more vertically extending arms 10 (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding independent method claim 17, DUGUAY et al. implicitly discloses method of lighting a surface including the steps of providing a lighting fixture (as seen in Figure 11) including a support (vertical standard, as seen in Figure 1) extending along an axis (vertical axis, as seen in Figure 1) from a first end (bottom end, as seen in Figure 1) to a second end (top end, as seen in Figure 1); and a lighting assembly 12/88 (as seen in Figures 1 and 11) coupled to the second end of the support (as seen in Figure 1), the lighting assembly 88 having a light emitting face (bottom surface of element 58, as seen in Figure 11) comprising a fixed optical assembly 56 (left side element 56, as seen in Figure 11) and a rotatable optical assembly 56 (right side element 56, as seen in Figure 11), wherein the light emitting face faces the support (as seen in Figure 11), and adjusting a rotational position of the rotatable optical assembly the rotatable optical assembly 56 (as seen in Figure 11) to vary the lighting distribution directed to the surface by the lighting assembly 88 (rotating right side element 56 would change the illumination output of the element 88, as evidenced by Figure 11).
Regarding dependent claim 18, DUGUAY et al. further discloses the rotational position is adjusted to provide an asymmetric lighting distribution from the lighting assembly 88 (the light output of element 88 is skewed to the left, as evidenced by Figure 11).
Regarding dependent claim 19, DUGUAY et al. further discloses the rotational position is adjusted to provide a symmetric lighting distribution from the lighting assembly 88 (the rotational position of right side element 56 can be adjusted to provide a symmetric output, as evidenced by Figure 11).
Regarding dependent claim 20, DUGUAY et al. further discloses the lighting distribution is provided as a combination of the fixed optical assembly 56 and rotatable optical assembly 56 (as evidenced by Figure 11).
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VAMBERI (U.S. Pat. 9,803,810).
Regarding independent claim 12, VAMBERI discloses a lighting assembly 10 (as seen in Figure 1) of a lighting fixture 30 (as seen in Figure 4A) including a light emitting face 24 (output surface of element 24, as seen in Figure 1) including at least one rotatable optical assembly 20 (as seen in Figure 1), such that the lighting distribution of the lighting assembly 10 varies according to rotational position of the rotatable optical assembly 20 (as seen in Figures 4A, 4B and 4C).
Regarding dependent claim 13, VAMBERI further discloses the rotatable optical assembly 20 provides an asymmetric lighting distribution (as seen in Figure 4A).
Regarding dependent claim 13, VAMBERI further discloses the lighting distribution of the lighting assembly 10 is asymmetric (as seen in Figure 4C).
Regarding dependent claim 13, VAMBERI further discloses the rotatable optical assembly 20 is rotatable in a plane of the light emitting face 24 or a plane parallel to the light emitting face 24 (as seen in Figures 4A, 4B and 4C).
Regarding dependent claim 13, VAMBERI further discloses one or more fixed optical assemblies (one of the elements 10 can remain fixed, as seen in Figures 4A, 4B and 4C).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUGUAY et al. (U.S. Pat. 8,025,428) in view of VAMBERI (U.S. Pat. 9,803,810).
DUGUAY et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, except the rotatable optical assembly 56 is rotatable in a plane parallel to the light emitting face.
However, VAMBERI discloses a lighting assembly 10 (as seen in Figure 1) of a lighting fixture 30 (as seen in Figure 4A) including at least one optical assembly 20 (as seen in Figure 1) rotatable in a plane parallel to the light emitting surface of a light emitting element 12 (as seen in Figures 4A, 4B and 4C), such that the lighting distribution of the lighting assembly 10 varies according to rotational position of the rotatable optical assembly 20 (as seen in Figures 4A, 4B and 4C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the known lighting assembly 10 of VAMBERI for that in the patented lighting fixture of DUGUAY et al., to obtain the predictable result of providing a compact lighting fixture capable of adjusting an illumination output pattern (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Logan (U.S. Pat. 6,193,395), Dubord (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0296390), Becker et al. (U.S. Pat. 7,896,521), Chang (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2012/0140468), Nankil (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2015/0252985), Clark et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,683,721), Guercio et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,732,951), Holopainen (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2019/0234584), Neuer et al. (U.S. Pat. 10,422,510), Demmekhuber et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 20200149709) and Spiro (U.S. Pat. 12,038,170) disclose illumination devices configured to be supported by substantially vertical standards, such devices including at least a first light emitting element configured for rotation such as to project an adjustable illumination pattern, and at least one second light emitting element independent of the first light emitting element so that it remains fixed when the first light emitting element is rotated.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights