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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment submitted 21 April 2025 has been entered. Currently Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
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 1-7 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 applicant regards as the invention. The scope of the claims is indefinite because there is an inconsistency between the body and the preamble. The preamble indicates that the subcombination, light fixture FOR mounting a plurality of light panels onto a surface, is being claimed. However, the body contains positive limitations directed toward the light panels suggesting that applicant intends to claim the combination of the fixture and the light panels Applicant is required to clarify what subject matter the claim is intended to be drawn to and the language of the claim must be amended to be consistent with this intent.
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.
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.
(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.
The applicant is respectfully advised that in examining a pending application, the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably convey. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dobija (U.S. Patent No. 7,510,297).
Regarding Claim 1, Dobmija disclsoes in Figures 1-6, a fixture 90 for mounting a plurality of light panels 60 onto a surface, comprising:, one or more aligning sides and a plurality of openings 65, wherein each opening 65 is sized and shaped to receive a respective mounting plate of a light panel 60 therein, a position of each opening 65 in relation to at least one aligning side of the fixture 90 is the same as or corresponds to a position of the respective mounting plate 60 in relation to at least one side of the light plate to which it is connected;
Regarding the light panels each having a different polygonal shape with a detachably connected mounting plate, the applicant is respectfully advised that such recitations have been considered to have little or no patentable weight as they relate to elements external to the subject matter of the invention as defined by the claims. The patented device of Dubija discloses all the structural features of the claimed invention (as detailed above) and was therefore considered to anticipate the claimed structure.
Regarding Claim 5, Dubija discloses in figure 2, the fixture of claim 1,wherein the fixture comprises a projection formed on each aligning side (the rail 90 has sides that project outwards).
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.
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.
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 applicant is respectfully advised that in examining a pending application, the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably convey. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Claim 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubjja (U.S. Patent No. 7,510,297).
Dubija does not disclose a fixture body of a hexagon shape, diamond shape or triagular shape, with a first one of the openings being centered with respect to the fixture body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a hexagonally shaped fixture body for accomodatign hexagonal shaped light panel bodies for aesthetic reasons, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Dubija.
Regarding the shape of the light panel, the applicant is respectfully advised that such recitations have been considered to have little or no patentable weight as they relate to elements external to the subject matter of the invention as defined by the claims. The patented device of Dubija discloses all the structural features of the claimed invention (as detailed above) and was therefore considered to anticipate the claimed structure.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubjja (U.S. Patent No. 7,510,297) in Dieckmann (U.S. PG Publication No. 2014/0233227).
Dubija does not disclose the plurality of openings 65 are through openings
Diekmann discloses a panel light fixture having through openings (20a Figure 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use through openings for using longer fasteners or for fastening to an additional support member behind the fixture. All the claimed elements in Dubija and Diekmann were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the through hole with the fixture 90 as claimed with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable result providing a fastening hole to fastening multiple support elements together that are stacked to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 3-4, the closest prior art does not teach or suggest alone or in combined the fixture body comprising a diamond portion and a triangular portion, with a second one of the openings being centered with respect to the diamond portion and a third one of the openings being centered with respect to the triangular portion.
Regarding Claims 8-20, the closest prior art does not teach or suggest alone or in combined the fixture body comprising:
A method of mounting a plurality of light panels onto a surface by using a fixture comprising the steps locating the fixture with respect to an existing light panel that is already mounted to the surface; locating or matching a mounting plate of a new light panel into an opening of the fixture and attaching the mounting plate to the surface; removing the fixture from the existing light panel and attaching a light panel body of the new light panel to the mounting plate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Curic (U.S. Patent No. 9,322,534) discloses a light panel mounting structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J MAY whose telephone number is (571)272-5919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT J MAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
