DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's preliminary amendment filed on 22 May 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 15-17, 19, 21, 24, 26, and 29-30 have been amended. Claims 4, 8, 10, 13-14, 18, 20, 22-23, 25, 27-28, and 31 have been cancelled. Claims 32 and 33 have been added. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 15-17, 19, 21, 24, 26, 29-30, and 32-33 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 32, and 33 being independent.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, “...wherein preferably an upper seal is arranged between the upper cover and the frame structure around the frame opening...” should read: --...wherein
Regarding claim 19, “...said first fixation part being preferably an integral part of the frame structure...wherein preferably the cover structure is configured and arranged for covering at least a portion of the first fixation part...” should read: --...said first fixation part being ...--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 15-17, 19, 21, 24, 26, 29-30, and 33 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 33, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: --...a gear tray comprising one or more electrical componentsfrom the group consisting of a driver configured for driving said at least one light source, a surge protection circuit, and
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 15-17, 19, 21, 24, 26, and 29-30 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation recites: “...wherein preferably the first and second wing have a minimum height Hmin and a minimum thickness t, wherein 5 <Hmin/t < 60, preferably 6 < Hmin/t < 40, more preferably 7 < Hmin/t < 35...” which renders the claim indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “5 <Hmin/t < 60”, and the claim also recites “preferably 6 < Hmin/t < 40, more preferably 7 < Hmin/t < 35” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: “...wherein
Regarding claim 9, the limitation recites: “...said peripheral wall having a maximum height Hmax, said height Hmax being larger than 20mm, preferably larger than 30mm, more preferably larger than 40mm...” which renders the claim indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “being larger than 20mm”, and the claim also recites “preferably larger than 30mm, more preferably larger than 40mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: “...said peripheral wall having a maximum height Hmax, said height Hmax being larger than 20mm,
Regarding claim 12, the limitation recites: “...the frame structure comprises metal, preferably an aluminum material; and/or wherein the cover structure comprises a non-metal material, preferably a plastic material...,” which renders the claim indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “...comprises metal...comprises a non-metal material...”, and the claim also recites “...preferably an aluminum material...preferably a plastic material...” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: “...the frame structure comprises metal
Regarding claim 19, the limitation recites: “...said assembly further comprising a second fixation part configured to be attached to a base, such as a pole...” which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: --...said assembly further comprising a second fixation part configured to be attached to a base...--. Clarification from the Applicant is requested and appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation recites: “...the first and second fixation part are configured such that the frame structure can be mounted in different positions with respect to the base, preferably different angular positions with respect to the base...,” which renders the claim indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “...the frame structure can be mounted in different positions with respect to the base...” and the claim also recites “...preferably different angular positions with respect to the base...” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as follows: “...the first and second fixation part are configured such that the frame structure can be mounted in different positions with respect to the base
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.
Claim Rejections - 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2012/0206901 A1, herein referred to as: Kim), in view of Wu (US 2013/0088861 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as is best understood, Kim teaches or suggests a luminaire head assembly (Figs. 1-9) comprising: a frame structure (2000, 3000, 3000, 5500, and 7000, collectively) with a heat sink (2000), an optical block (1000) with at least one light source (430), said optical block being attached to said frame structure opposite the heat sink (as shown in Fig. 6), a tray (the portion of 5500 forming G2) comprising one or more electrical components (6000) from the group consisting of a driver configured for driving said at least one light source, a surge protection circuit, and a fuse (6000 is a driver configured for driving said at least one light source), a cover structure (5100 and 5200) configured and arranged for covering at least a portion of the frame structure (as shown in Fig. 1), said frame structure comprising a frame part (5500) with a frame opening (G2) extending between an upper and a lower side of the frame structure (as shown in Fig. 2) and configured to receive the tray (as shown in Fig. 9).
Kim does not explicitly teach that said tray is a gear tray.
Wu teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-7) a gear tray (24, or 24 and 26, and/or 24, 26, and the crossbar to which 24 is formed with, or the crossbar to which 24 is formed with, as shown in Figs. 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of a gear tray, such as taught or suggested by Wu, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or otherwise increasing the marketability and/or utility of the device (e.g., by making the illumination output direction adjustable).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-9) the cover structure (5100 and 5200) is configured for covering the upper and/or lower side of the frame opening (G2, as shown in Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-9) the frame structure has a fixation end (an end of 5500 opposite to said G2, as shown in Fig. 9) configured to be fixed to a base (e.g., to a base formed by a pole), and the frame opening (G2) is located between the fixation end and the optical block (as shown in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, as is best understood, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-9) the frame structure comprises a first and second wing (each 3000 and/or the lateral sides of 5500 forms a wing) extending from the fixation end at a first and second longitudinal side of the frame opening (as shown in Figs. 1-9).
Kim does not explicitly teach that wherein the first and second wing have a minimum height Hmin and a minimum thickness t, wherein 5 <Hmin/t < 60.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and formed the first and second wing have a minimum height Hmin and a minimum thickness t, wherein 5 <Hmin/t < 60, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to optimize the rigidity, weight, and/or material cost of the device (e.g., by forming an appropriately rigid set of wings to support the load of the luminaire head, providing the wings with sufficient space for wire routing, providing the wings with sufficient thickness or height or the desired appearance, and/or minimizing material cost).
Regarding claim 9, as is best understood, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-9) the frame part comprises a peripheral wall delimiting the frame opening (as shown in Figs. 1-9); and/or wherein the frame structure comprises a second frame part (3000), optionally removably attached to the frame part (5500) with the frame opening (as shown in Figs. 1-9), wherein the heat sink is integrated in the second frame part (as shown in Figs. 1-9, said heat sink 2000 is integrated, i.e. “...to incorporate into a larger unit...” to the luminaire head via said second frame part).
Kim does not explicitly teach said peripheral wall having a maximum height Hmax, said height Hmax being larger than 20mm.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and formed said peripheral wall to have a maximum height Hmax, said height Hmax being larger than 20mm, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to optimize the rigidity, weight, and/or material cost of the device (e.g., by forming an appropriately rigid peripheral wall to support the load of the luminaire head and size of the electronics therein, providing sufficient space for wire routing, providing the peripheral walls with sufficient height for the desired appearance, and/or minimizing material cost).
Regarding claim 12, as is best understood, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-9) the frame structure comprises metal (paragraph [0100]); and/or wherein the gear tray comprises a plate-like element (any of the sidewalls forming G2, and/or the lower portion of 5500) on which the one or more electrical components are arranged (via the opening therethrough, and passages to the driver 6000. Additionally, or alternatively, the inner wall surface having 213 to which 209 is attached in the Wu reference also forms a plate-like element of the gear tray on which the one or more electrical components 209 are arranged).
Kim does not explicitly teach that the cover structure comprises a non-metal material.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and formed the cover structure of a non-metal material, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of reducing the cost of manufacturing the device, and/or reduce the weight of the device.
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-9) the cover structure is dimensioned such that air is allowed to flow freely adjacent the heat sink (as shown in Figs. 1-9).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-9) the cover structure is arranged and dimensioned such that a portion of the heat sink is not covered by the upper cover (5100) and such that air is allowed to flow freely adjacent the heat sink (as shown in Figs. 1-9); and/or wherein the cover structure comprises an upper cover (5100) with a width (e.g. the total width at an end adjacent 4000) which is larger than a width of the frame structure (e.g., a width of a wing of 5500) covered by the upper cover (as shown in Figs. 1-9); and/or wherein the frame structure comprises a tubular fixation part (at an end of 5500 opposite (G2) as an integral part of the frame structure (as shown in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 19, as is best understood, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-9) the frame structure comprises a first fixation part (at a bottom end of 5500 opposite G2), said first fixation part being an integral part of the frame structure (as shown in Fig. 9), wherein the cover structure is configured and arranged for covering at least a portion of the first fixation part (as shown in Figs. 1-9).
Kim does not explicitly teach said assembly further comprising a second fixation part configured to be attached to a base, and to cooperate with said first fixation part.
Wu teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-7) said assembly further comprising a second fixation part (10) configured to be attached to a base (e.g., a pole), and to cooperate with said first fixation part (24, 26, as shown in Figs. 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of said assembly further comprising a second fixation part configured to be attached to a base, and to cooperate with said first fixation part, such as taught or suggested by Wu, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or otherwise increasing the marketability and/or utility of the device (e.g., by making the illumination output direction adjustable).
Regarding claims 21, 24, and 26, as are best understood, Kim does not explicitly teach that the first and second fixation part are configured such that the frame structure can be mounted in different positions with respect to the base; and/or wherein the first and second fixation part comprise a first and second pivot part, respectively, such that the frame structure can be mounted in different angular positions with respect to the base; and/or wherein the gear tray is attached to the frame structure between the optical block and the first fixation part (as recited in claim 21); wherein the second fixation part comprises a tubular part configured to receive a portion of a pole; or wherein the second fixation part comprises a U-shaped part configured to receive a portion of a pole (as recited in claim 24); wherein the second fixation part is separate from the cover structure: and/or wherein the cover structure comprises a lower cover configured for covering a lower portion of the first fixation part (as recited in claim 26).
Wu teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-7) the first (24, 26) and second (10) fixation part are configured such that the frame structure can be mounted in different positions with respect to the base (via interlocking of teeth therebetween, at various positions); and/or wherein the first and second fixation part comprise a first and second pivot part (each form and thus comprise a pivot part, about an axis through 24), respectively, such that the frame structure can be mounted in different angular positions with respect to the base (via the interlocking of teeth therebetween); and/or wherein the gear tray (the cross bar to which 24 are attached) is attached to the frame structure between the optical block (30) and the first fixation part (24, 26, as shown in Fig. 5a); wherein the second fixation part (10) comprises a tubular part configured to receive a portion of a pole (as shown in Figs. 1-7); or wherein the second fixation part comprises a U-shaped part configured to receive a portion of a pole (each half of the base of 10 opposite 11 comprises a U-shaped portion configured to receive a portion of a pole); wherein the second fixation part (10) is separate from the cover structure (as shown in Figs. 1-7): and/or wherein the cover structure comprises a lower cover (203) configured for covering a lower portion of the first fixation part (24, 26, from below, as shown in Figs. 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of the first and second fixation part are configured such that the frame structure can be mounted in different positions with respect to the base; and/or wherein the first and second fixation part comprise a first and second pivot part, respectively, such that the frame structure can be mounted in different angular positions with respect to the base; and/or wherein the gear tray is attached to the frame structure between the optical block and the first fixation part (as recited in claim 21); wherein the second fixation part comprises a tubular part configured to receive a portion of a pole; or wherein the second fixation part comprises a U-shaped part configured to receive a portion of a pole (as recited in claim 24); wherein the second fixation part is separate from the cover structure: and/or wherein the cover structure comprises a lower cover configured for covering a lower portion of the first fixation part (as recited in claim 26), such as taught or suggested by Wu, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or otherwise increasing the marketability and/or utility of the device (e.g., by making the illumination output direction adjustable).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Wu, and in further view of Nimma et al. (US 2016/0061428 A1, herein referred to as: Nimma).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-9) the cover structure (5100 and 5200) comprises an upper cover (5100) and a lower cover (5200) configured for covering the frame opening from above and from below (as shown in Figs. 1-2), respectively; wherein an upper seal (5300) is arranged between the upper cover and the frame structure around the frame opening (as shown in Fig. 2).
Kim does not explicitly teach a lower seal is arranged between the lower cover and the frame structure around the frame opening.
Nimma teaches or suggests (Figs. 1A-6D) a lower seal (145) is arranged between the lower cover (150) and the frame structure (140) around the frame opening (131).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of a lower seal is arranged between the lower cover and the frame structure around the frame opening, such as taught or suggested by Nimma, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or otherwise increasing the performance and/or longevity of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to reduce the ingress of water or other environmental contaminants).
Regarding claim 5, Kim does not explicitly teach that the upper cover adjoins the lower cover along at least two opposite sides of the luminaire head.
Wu teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-7) the upper cover (21) adjoins the lower cover (203) along at least two opposite sides of the luminaire head (as shown in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of the upper cover adjoins the lower cover along at least two opposite sides of the luminaire head, such as taught or suggested by Wu, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or otherwise increasing the performance and/or longevity of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to reduce the ingress of water or other environmental contaminants).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Wu, and in further view of Shen (US 2013/0148340 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-9) the frame structure (2000, 3000, 3000, 5500, and 7000, collectively) comprises a second frame part (3000), optionally removably attached to the frame part with the frame opening (as shown in Fig. 2), wherein the heat sink (2000) is integrated in the second frame part (as shown in Figs. 1-9, said heat sink 2000 is integrated, i.e. “...to incorporate into a larger unit...” to the luminaire head via said second frame part).
Neither Kim nor Wu teach that the second frame part is pivotable with respect to the frame part with the frame opening.
Shen teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-14) the frame structure comprises a second frame part (Fig. 6), optionally removably attached to the frame part with the frame opening (27; as shown in Figs. 1-6), wherein the heat sink (2) is integrated in the second frame part (as shown in Figs. 1-6), and wherein the second frame part is pivotable with respect to the frame part with the frame opening (via 40 on an outer lateral side thereof, as shown in Figs. 11-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of the second frame part is pivotable with respect to the frame part with the frame opening, such as taught or suggested by Shen, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or otherwise increasing the marketability and/or utility of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to adjust the orientation of light emitted from the lighting device to suit various lighting applications).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Wu, and in further view of Kong et al. (US 2011/0222284 A1, herein referred to as: Kong).
Regarding claim 16, Kim does not explicitly teach that the cover structure comprises an upper cover with a hole dimensioned such that a portion of the heat sink is accessible through said hole and such that air is allowed to flow freely adjacent the heat sink.
Kong teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-17) the cover structure comprises an upper cover (110) with a hole (111) dimensioned such that a portion (121) of the heat sink (120) is accessible through said hole (as shown in Figs. 9-10) and such that air is allowed to flow freely adjacent the heat sink (across the top and through the space of 111 around 121, as shown in Figs. 9-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of the cover structure comprises an upper cover with a hole dimensioned such that a portion of the heat sink is accessible through said hole and such that air is allowed to flow freely adjacent the heat sink, such as taught or suggested by Kong, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or otherwise increasing the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to cover and protect the heatsink, and dissipating heat therefrom).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Wu, and in further view of Wilcox et al. (US 2014/0218941 A1, herein referred to as: Wilcox).
Regarding claim 29, Kim does not explicitly teach that the heat sink is an integral part of the frame structure.
Wilcox teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-39A) the heat sink (42B) is an integral part of the frame structure (as shown in Figs. 21-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of the heat sink is an integral part of the frame structure, such as taught or suggested by Wilcox, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of reducing the cost and/or complexity of manufacturing the device.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Wu, and in further view of Mostoller et al. (US 2021/0359475 A1, herein referred to as: Mostoller).
Regarding claim 30, neither Kim nor Wu explicitly teach a cover structure is provided with a hole in which a receptacle configured for a receiving a pluggable control module is arranged; and/or wherein the cover structure is provided with a hole in which a sensor or human interface device is arranged.
Mostoller teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-17) a cover structure (102/104) is provided with a hole (a hole in which 110 is inserted) in which a receptacle (110) configured for a receiving a pluggable control module (112) is arranged (as shown in Figs. 1-17); and/or wherein the cover structure is provided with a hole (a hole in which 110 is received) in which a sensor or human interface device (110, 112) is arranged (as shown in Figs. 1-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of a cover structure is provided with a hole in which a receptacle configured for a receiving a pluggable control module is arranged; and/or wherein the cover structure is provided with a hole in which a sensor or human interface device is arranged, such as taught or suggested by Mostoller, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of simplifying assembly of the device, and/or improving or otherwise increasing the marketability and serviceability of the device (e.g., by providing a configuration in which ease of installation, substitution, or replacement is implemented).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Kong.
Regarding claim 32 Kim teaches or suggests a luminaire head assembly (Figs. 1-9) comprising: a frame structure (2000, 3000, 3000, 5500, and 7000, collectively) with a heat sink (2000), an optical block (1000) with at least one light source (430), said optical block being attached to said frame structure opposite the heat sink (as shown in Fig. 6), and a cover structure (5100 and 5200) configured and arranged for covering at least a portion of the frame structure (as shown in Fig. 1).
Kim does not explicitly teach that the cover structure comprises an upper cover with a hole dimensioned such that a portion of the heat sink is accessible through said hole and such that air is allowed to flow freely adjacent the heat sink.
Kong teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-17) the cover structure comprises an upper cover (110) with a hole (111) dimensioned such that a portion (121) of the heat sink (120) is accessible through said hole (as shown in Figs. 9-10) and such that air is allowed to flow freely adjacent the heat sink (across the top and through the space of 111 around 121, as shown in Figs. 9-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of the cover structure comprises an upper cover with a hole dimensioned such that a portion of the heat sink is accessible through said hole and such that air is allowed to flow freely adjacent the heat sink, such as taught or suggested by Kong, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or otherwise increasing the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to cover and protect the heatsink, and dissipating heat therefrom).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Wu and Shen.
Regarding claim 33, as is best understood, Kim teaches or suggests a luminaire head assembly (Figs. 1-9) comprising: a frame structure (2000, 3000, 3000, 5500, and 7000, collectively) comprising a first frame part (5500) and a second frame part (3000), said second frame part (3000) having a heat sink (2000), an optical block (1000) with at least one light source (430), said optical block (1000) being attached to said frame structure (3000) opposite the heat sink (via an underside of 2000, as shown in Fig. 6), a tray (the portion of 5500 forming G2) comprising one or more electrical components (6000) from the group consisting of a driver configured for driving said at least one light source, a surge protection circuit, and a fuse (6000 is a driver configured for driving said at least one light source), a cover structure (5100 and 5200) configured and arranged for covering at least a portion of the frame structure (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the tray is attached to the first frame part (as shown in Figs. 1-9).
Kim does not explicitly teach that said tray is a gear tray.
Wu teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-7) a gear tray (24, or 24 and 26, and/or 24, 26, and the crossbar to which 24 is formed with, or the crossbar to which 24 is formed with, as shown in Figs. 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of a gear tray, such as taught or suggested by Wu, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or otherwise increasing the marketability and/or utility of the device (e.g., by making the illumination output direction adjustable).
The combined teachings of Kim and Wu teach or suggest all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the second frame part is pivotable with respect to the first frame part.
Shen teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-14) the frame structure comprises a second frame part (Fig. 6), optionally removably attached to the frame part with the frame opening (27; as shown in Figs. 1-6), wherein the heat sink (2) is integrated in the second frame part (as shown in Figs. 1-6), and wherein the second frame part is pivotable with respect to the frame part with the frame opening (via 40 on an outer lateral side thereof, as shown in Figs. 11-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Kim and incorporated the teachings of the second frame part is pivotable with respect to the first frame part, such as taught or suggested by Shen, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of improving or otherwise increasing the marketability and/or utility of the device (e.g., by providing an additional feature to adjust the orientation of light emitted from the lighting device to suit various lighting applications).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please see CN 105650557 A to He, pertinent to disclosed features of the gear tray.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights