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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 62, 65 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 62 recites “the longitudinal axis of the metal core printed circuit board is substantially parallel to the axis of the aperture”. The axes are not defined. It is unclear which direction the “longitudinal axis” is. The Examiner suggests reciting the shape of the mcpcb and the aperture and further to recite axes with respect to the emission or optical axis of the light module. I.e. “wherein the longitudinal axis is parallel to the direction of emission of the light emitting element”.
Claim 62 also recites “to thereby at least partially deform the [mcpcb]”. The limitation is a recited as a method limitation, however the claim is an apparatus claim.
Claim 65 further recites “axis” limitations without a frame of reference.
Examiner’s note: the claims extensively use the limitation “and/or”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation such limitations are interpreted as reciting “or”.
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 69, 70, 73, 76, and 80 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.
Claim 69, 76, and 80 recite “preferably”. It is unclear if the following limitations are required by the claim. The Examiner suggests removing such language.
Claim 70 and 73 recite “but not limited to”. The following limitations are therefore extraneous. The Examiner suggests removing such language.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 71 and 74 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 71 fails to further limit claim 62, from which it depends. The claim only recites limitations that are already present in claim 62.
Claim 74 fails to further limit claim 62, from which it depends. The claim only recites limitations that are already present in claim 62.
The Examiner notes that both claims 71 and 74 recite a portion of claim 62 as the preamble. The claims cannot increase the scope of the independent claim. The Examiner suggests writing 71 and 74 as independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 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.
Claim(s) 62, 63, 65, 66, 70-74, 77, 78, 81 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heijmans (U.S. 2022/0390076).
Regarding claim 62, Heijmans teaches a lighting assembly including:
a body (see fig. 1c, housing 300 including fixating elements 320) including an aperture (opening of 310), the body being formed of a substantially thermally conductive material (see p. 0009 dissipates to housing wall, see p. 0044, may be an overmolded heat sink);
a light emitting module adapted to be inserted in said aperture,
the light emitting module including:
a metal core printed circuit board (MCPCB see p. 0042); and
a light emitting element (LEDs 100, see p. 0012) mounted to the metal core printed circuit board,
wherein the aperture is sized such that an internal diameter of the aperture is substantially equal to or less than a width of the metal core printed circuit board (see fig. 1c, mcpcb is bent to fit), such that, the light emitting module is installed via an interference fit into the aperture of the body to thereby at least partially deform the metal core printed circuit board (bending of the support see p. 0043),
wherein, when the light emitting module is inserted, the longitudinal axis of the metal core printed circuit board is substantially parallel to the axis of the aperture (both have an axis that is parallel).
Regarding claim 63, Heijmans teaches that the aperture is tapered (see fig. 1c, base tapers towards 1030) or chamfered, and/or, wherein the leading edge of the metal core printed circuit board is tapered or chamfered.
Regarding claim 65, Heijmans teaches that the orientation of the light emitting element is substantially perpendicular to the axis of the aperture, or, wherein the orientation of the light emitting element is substantially parallel to the axis of the aperture.
Regarding claim 66, Heijmans teaches that the metal core printed circuit board includes one or more substantially straight cut (straight cut edges) or routed cut edges, and/or, wherein the metal core printed circuit board includes one or more V-cut or V-score edges, and/or, wherein the metal core printed circuit board includes one or more fingernail-shaped or convex-shaped edges.
Regarding claim 67, Heijmans teaches that the metal core printed circuit board of the light emitting module is further mounted with any one or combination of: a surface mount device connector; a resistor; a shunt; and one or more other surface mount device components (see p. 0072, electronics 400 have a driver/communication device, see fig. 1a, surface mount device).
Regarding claim 70, Heijmans teaches that the metal core printed circuit board is substantially rectangular-shaped (see fig. 1a), and/or, wherein the metal core printed circuit board is at least partially formed of any one or combination of copper, gold, silver, aluminium and platinum, and/or, wherein the body is substantially formed of a metal material, including, but not limited to, any one or combination of copper, gold, silver, aluminium and platinum.
Regarding claim 71, Heijmans teaches that body being formed of a substantially thermally conductive material and including an aperture.
Regarding claim 72, Heijmans teaches that the aperture is tapered or chamfered (see fig. 1c, tapers).
Regarding claim 73, Heijmans teaches that the body is substantially formed of a metal material, including, but not limited to, any one or combination of copper, gold, silver, aluminium (aluminum see p. 0041) and platinum.
Regarding claim 74, Heijmans teaches including: a metal core printed circuit board; and a light emitting element mounted to the metal core printed circuit board.
Regarding claim 77, Heijmans teaches that the metal core printed circuit board includes one or more substantially straight cut (straight cut edges) or routed cut edges, and/or, wherein the metal core printed circuit board includes one or more V-cut or V-score edges, and/or, wherein the metal core printed circuit board includes one or more fingernail-shaped or convex-shaped edges.
Regarding claim 78, Heijmans teaches that the metal core printed circuit board of the light emitting module is further mounted with any one or combination of: a surface mount device connector (smd electronics 400); a resistor; a shunt; and one or more other surface mount device components.
Regarding claim 81, Heijmans teaches that the metal core printed circuit board is substantially rectangular-shaped, and/or, wherein the metal core printed circuit board is at least partially formed of any one or combination of copper, gold, silver, aluminum (see p. 0041) and platinum.
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.
Claim 64 and 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heijmans in view of Chen (U.S. 2018/0206411).
Regarding claim 64, Heijmans teaches that the light emitting element is mounted on the metal core printed circuit board, or, wherein the light emitting element is mounted to an end of the metal core printed circuit board, and, wherein preferably, the light emitting element is thermally connected to the metal core printed circuit board via a substantially centrally located structure.
Heijmans does not teach an electrically isolated thermal pad.
Chen teaches an electrically isolated thermal pad (see p. 0049-0050).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a thermal pad as taught by Chen to connect the LED structure of Heijmans to the MCPCB to provide lower thermal resistance and therefore enable more efficient heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 76, Heijmans teaches that the light emitting element is mounted on the metal core printed circuit board, or, wherein the lighting element is mounted to an end of the metal core printed circuit board, and, wherein preferably, the light emitting element is thermally connected to the metal core printed circuit board via a substantially centrally located structure.
Heijmans does not teach an electrically isolated thermal pad.
Chen teaches an electrically isolated thermal pad (see p. 0049-0050).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a thermal pad as taught by Chen to connect the LED structure of Heijmans to the MCPCB to provide lower thermal resistance and therefore enable more efficient heat dissipation.
Claim 68, 69, 79, 80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heijmans.
Regarding claim 68, Heijmans does not specifically teach that the width of the metal core printed circuit board is substantially equal to or less than 10 mm.
“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 Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the current claim, the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the specific sizes of the MCPCB. Such sizes are noncritical and do not create a different use or function, and therefore do not overcome the prior art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the width of the mcpcb. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 69, Heijmans does not specifically teaches that the lighting emitting element is a light emitting diode, and, wherein the maximum power of the light emitting diode is preferably in the range of 1 to 10 Watts, and/or, wherein the dimension of the light emitting diode is preferably approximately 1.6 mm x 1.6 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the size and power of the LED. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 79, Heijmans does not specifically teach that the width of the metal core printed circuit board is substantially equal to or less than 10 mm.
“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 Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the current claim, the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the specific sizes of the MCPCB. Such sizes are noncritical and do not create a different use or function, and therefore do not overcome the prior art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the width of the mcpcb. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Regarding claim 80, Heijmans does not specifically teaches that the lighting emitting element is a light emitting diode, and, wherein the maximum power of the light emitting diode is preferably in the range of 1 to 10 Watts, and/or, wherein the dimension of the light emitting diode is preferably approximately 1.6 mm x 1.6 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the size and power of the LED. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456.
Claim 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heijmans in view of Progl (U.S. 2015/0062909).
Regarding claim 75, Heijmans does not teach that the leading edge of the metal core printed circuit board is tapered or chamfered.
Progl teaches that the leading edge of the metal core printed circuit board is tapered (see p. 0171, camming surface 194 is angled to engage the wall of receptacle 192 on insertion) or chamfered.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a tapered MCPCB edge as taught by Progl for the insertion portion of Heijmans to have a more secure seat with a tighter clamping force for heat conduction, see p. 0171 of Progl.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
11,028,972 teaches a similar structure used in a linear lighting device (see fig. 12b specifically).
10,190,755 teaches a deformed interference fit for a PCB.
9,392,682 teaches a pcb with tapered edges for engaging in a groove.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights