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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/9/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the support component disposed within the cavity formed by the wall of the body when the access cover is in the closed position of Claim 1, the support component exposed when the access cover is moved to an open position of Claim 1, the additional cover of Claim 2 lines 1-2, the multiple parts of Claim 8 comprised by the access cover of Claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“transition component” of Claim 1, understood to be a component for transitioning, disclosed in Specification page 10 lines 3-11 as defining the bottom of the access cover assembly and configured to be coupled to the top end of the bottom luminaire portion, to the access cover, and to the bottom end of the support components, and can include one or more coupling features, and in Specification page 13 lines 20-34 and page 14 lines 1-25 as having a body that is substantially cylindrical in shape with a short height relative to the overall width, the underside of the body having bottom luminaire portion coupling features being slots configured to receive distal vertical segments of a lower cover, and apertures configured to receive a bolt, one or more plates used to secure a horizontal segment of the lower cover and each plate having one or more coupling features, a top side of the body of the transition component having support component coupling features being apertures allowing the transition component to be coupled to a screw, a top side of the body has one or more access cover coupling features configured to couple to one or more slots that track along and jut inside the outer wall of the transition component allowing the transition component to couple to the access cover by a screw,
“access cover coupling feature” of Claim 1, understood to be a feature for coupling to the access cover, disclosed in Specification page 14 lines 15-22 as being a slot that tracks along and just inside the outer wall of the transition component allowing the transition component and the access cover to be indirectly coupled to each other using a screw,
“bottom luminaire portion coupling feature” of Claim 1, understood to be a feature for coupling to the bottom luminaire portion, disclosed in Specification page 13 lines 25-28 as being a slot configured to receive a distal vertical segment of the lower cover,
“transition component coupling feature” of Claim 1, understood to be a feature for coupling to the transition component, disclosed in Specification page 5 lines 14-32 and page 15 lines 9-14 as being an aperture that allows the support component to be indirectly coupled to the transition component using a screw,
“support component” of Claim 1, understood to be a component for supporting, disclosed in Specification page 14 lines 26-34 and page 15 lines 1-23 as including a body that is substantially planar and having a height that is substantially the same as that of a space , the body having a top flange extending laterally away from the top end of the body and a bottom flange extending laterally away from the bottom end of the body, the top and bottom flanges being parallel to one another, the top flange including one or more top luminaire portion coupling features being apertures configured to couple to the top luminaire portion using a screw, the bottom flange has one or more transition component coupling features being apertures configured to couple to the transition component using a screw, a left and a right side of the body each having a rolled edge, the body having a window,
“multiple parts that are movable” of Claim 8, understood to be multiple parts for moving, disclosed in Specification page 20 lines 24-31 to be an access cover part having one or more of a number of features including collars, flanges, coupling features that allow one access cover part to remain coupled to another access cover part and arranged such that an upper-most access cover part remains in a fully closed position relative a lower access cover part,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to Claim 8, lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the access cover comprises multiple parts that are movable relative to each other”. The Specification discloses on page 20 lines 6-12 the access cover being able to have multiple parts that are independently movable between a closed position and an open position relative each other to encase a different space, and on page 20 lines 25-31 the access cover parts can be disposed so as to include at least an upper-most access cover part and a lower access cover part. Pages 21 and 22 of the Specification further disclose coupling of the access cover parts relative one another. However, the Specification does not disclose the structure of the “parts” or their relationship to the remainder of the structure of the access cover. For example, are the “parts” portions of the existing access cover (e.g., the access cover body is formed in multiple parts or the body is formed as a separate part from the support component and the body and support component are movable relative one another), are the “parts” additional elements added to the structure of Claim 1, and if so, what is the structure of such parts (e.g., are these individual doors?) and how do they relate to the structure of the access cover of Claim 1 to allow for the open and closed positions of the access cover, particularly in an arrangement with an upper-most part and a lower part.
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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to Claim 1 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 1 line 6-7 recite the limitation “a transition component comprising an access cover coupling feature and a bottom luminaire portion coupling feature”. As interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as discussed above, the bottom luminaire portion coupling feature is disclosed in Specification page 13 lines 25-28 as being a slot configured to receive a distal vertical segment of the lower cover. However, a lower cover is not required by the claim language. The Specification discloses in page 13 the bottom luminaire portion including a lower cover, and it is unclear as to whether the scope of the claim requires the bottom luminaire portion to include a lower cover. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands the bottom luminaire portion to include a lower cover such that the bottom luminaire portion coupling feature is a slot configured to receive a distal vertical segment of the lower cover. The applicant is encouraged to clearly define all structure required by the claim and particularly required by the bottom luminaire portion, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With regards to Claim 1 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 1 lines 14-17 recite the limitations “a support component disposed within the cavity formed by the wall of the body when the access cover is in a closed position, and wherein the support component is configured to be exposed when the access cover is moved to an open position”. It is unclear as to how the access cover achieves a closed position and an open position, particularly since the access cover is defined by the claim on lines 8-13 as including a body comprising a wall, the wall forming a cavity with an open top and an open bottom, and a transition component coupling feature configured to couple to the access cover coupling feature of the transition component. The structure as required by the claim does not disclose an open/closing element, and the cavity formed by the wall of the body includes an open top and an open bottom. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the open and closed configurations of the access cover are achieved, and it is unclear as to how one or ordinary skill in the art would determine if the access cover is in the closed position and the open position, and therefore also how the support component will be disposed within the cavity when the access cover is in the closed position, and how the support component is exposed (and what the support component is exposed to) in the open position. The examiner has looked to the Specification for guidance on understanding the claim scope for examination, and acknowledges the applicant’s ability to act as their own lexicographer (see MPEP 2173.05(a)). The Specification defines the “closed position” and “open position” of the access cover on page 10 lines 18-33 such that the access cover is movable relative the remainder of the access cover assembly such that in an “open position” the space between the top luminaire portion and the bottom luminaire portion is completely enclosed and not accessible and is in a “closed position” when the access cover is within a range of positions relative to the access cover assembly, and the access cover is located in a position relative the rest of the access cover assembly such that the space between the top luminaire portion and bottom luminaire portion is sufficiently exposed and one or more operational components within the space are accessible. These definitions provided by the applicant in the Specification appear to contradict the limitation recited in the claim, particularly the support component being exposed when the access cover is moved to an open position of Claim 1 appears to conflict with the applicant’s definition of the access cover open position as completely enclosing the space between the top luminaire portion and bottom luminaire portion and not being accessible. Therefore, it is additionally unclear as to how the support component is structurally related to the access cover so that it can be disposed within the cavity in the “closed position” and configured to be exposed when the access cover is in the “open position”.
With regards to Claim 1 and claims depending therefrom, lines 21- recite the limitation “wherein the operational component uses the window to measure a parameter in an ambient environment outside the cavity formed by the body of the access cover when the access cover is in the closed position”. It is unclear as to how the operational component intends to “use” the window to measure the parameter since a window is not a measuring device or a sensor or similar device capable of detecting a parameter for measurement. Furthermore, the Specification defines the “closed position” and “open position” of the access cover on page 10 lines 18-33 such that the access cover is movable relative the remainder of the access cover assembly such that in an “open position” the space between the top luminaire portion and the bottom luminaire portion is completely enclosed and not accessible and is in a “closed position” when the access cover is within a range of positions relative to the access cover assembly, and the access cover is located in a position relative the rest of the access cover assembly such that the space between the top luminaire portion and bottom luminaire portion is sufficiently exposed and one or more operational components within the space are accessible (see Specification page 10 lines 18-33). Therefore, it is unclear as to how the operational component uses the window to measure the parameter outside the cavity formed by the body in the closed position when the access cover is located in a position relative the rest of the access cover assembly such that the space between the top and bottom luminaire portions is sufficiently exposed and one or more operational components are exposed.
With regards to Claim 1 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 1 lines 26-27 recite the limitation “the bottom collar located along a bottom of the body” and Claim 1 lines 27-28 recite the limitation “a second outer diameter of the top end of the bottom luminaire portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrasing “the bottom collar” and for the phrasing “the top end of the bottom luminaire portion” in the claim language. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether the bottom collar is intended to be a portion of the body formed along a bottom of the body, whether the bottom collar is intended to be a portion of the transition component between the access cover and the bottom luminaire, whether the bottom collar intends to be a separate component additional to at least the bottom luminaire, access cover, and transition component, or whether another arrangement is intended. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that a bottom collar is located along a bottom of the body and has a second inner diameter that is larger than a second outer diameter of a top end of the bottom luminaire portion. The applicant is encouraged to provide sufficient antecedent basis for all limitations in the claims, and clearly define all structure required by the claim scope, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With regards to Claim 2, lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the bottom luminaire portion comprises an additional cover”. The phrasing “additional” intends a cover in addition to a previous cover. It is unclear as to whether the “additional” cover intends to be a cover in addition to a previous cover of the bottom luminaire (e.g., in addition to a bottom cover, see Specification page 8 lines 21-23), or whether the “additional” cover of Claim 2 intends to be a cover in addition to a previous cover to another element of the luminaire (e.g., in addition to the access cover), or to refer to the “bottom collar” of Claim 1 (see Specification page 2; the bottom collar is configured to cover the top end of the bottom luminaire portion and can therefore substantially act as a “cover”). Furthermore, as discussed above, it is unclear as to whether the bottom luminaire portion of Claim 1 intends to include a lower cover, and therefore it is unclear as to whether Claim 2 intends to include the lower cover being the additional cover or whether Claim 2 intends another cover. The examiner notes that should the applicant intend the “additional cover” of Claim 2 to refer to the “bottom collar” or lower cover of Claim 1, Claim 2 would not be further limiting. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation to require the bottom luminaire portion to include a cover in addition to the lower cover of Claim 1. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the structure of the bottom luminaire portion, specifically any covers included therein, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With regards to Claim 6, lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the body of the access cover has a slightly conical shape”. The term “slightly” in Claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the body of the access cover has a shape that has at least one characteristic in common with a conical shape. The applicant is encouraged to clarify the intended shape of the body required by the claim and included within the scope of the claim, fully supported by the original disclosure.
With regards to Claim 7, line 6 recites the phrasing “the bottom end of the top luminaire portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim language. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that a top collar is located along a top of the body and has a third inner diameter that is smaller than a third outer diameter of a bottom end of the top luminaire portion. The applicant is encouraged to provide sufficient antecedent basis for all limitations in the claims.
With regards to Claim 8, lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the access cover comprises multiple parts that are movable relative to each other”. It is unclear as to whether the access cover further comprises multiple parts in addition to the structure as defined in Claim 1 or whether the “multiple parts” of the access cover intend that multiple elements of the structure of the access cover defined in Claim 1 are movable relative one another. Furthermore, as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as discussed above, the “multiple parts” includes an upper-most part and a lower part, and it is unclear as to whether this requires a relative positioning of the structural elements of Claim 1 or whether the addition of the multiple parts of Claim 8 requires an upper-most part and a lower part movable relative one another and stacked in conjunction with the structure of the access cover defined in Claim 1, and how such multiple parts correspond to the open and closed positions of the access cover as required by Claim 1.
Due to the numerous aspects of indefiniteness and the apparent conflicting limitations pertaining to the access cover as discussed above, Claims 1-8 have not been further treated on the merits. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the structure forming the luminaire as required by the claim scope and the relationship between the elements forming the luminaire to achieve the applicant’s inventive concept, fully supported by the original disclosure. The applicant is also encouraged to review the prior art cited in the attached PTO-892 and discussed below.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the prior art discussed in this action, the applicant is directed to form 892, and particularly the references Rodriguez (US 10,571,096), which discloses at least a luminaire with a top luminaire portion configured to be suspended from a structure, a bottom luminaire portion, an access cover assembly including an access cove formed of a body having a circumferential wall including a cavity therein, coupling the upper luminaire portion with the access cover assembly, coupling the access cover assembly with the lower luminaire portion, Haddad (US 2009/0168438), which discloses at least a luminaire including a top luminaire portion, a bottom luminaire portion, and an access cover assembly disposed therebetween, a transition component disposed between the access cover assembly and bottom luminaire portion, the access cover including an access cover which can be in an open position and a closed position, and formed of a body with a cavity therein with an operational component disposed within the cavity, Kovalchick (US 2016/0053982), which discloses at least a luminaire including a top luminaire portion, a bottom luminaire portion, and an access cover assembly disposed therebetween, a transition component disposed between the access cover assembly and bottom luminaire portion, the access cover including an access cover which can be in an open position and a closed position, and formed of a body with a cavity therein with an operational component disposed within the cavity, Adams (US 2019/0301724), which discloses at least a luminaire including a top luminaire portion and an access cover assembly, the access cover including an access cover which can be in an open position and a closed position, and formed of a body with a cavity therein with an operational component disposed within the cavity, a window allowing the operational component to have a line of sight devices or components external to the luminaire, Ewing (US 5,243,508), which discloses at least a luminaire including a top luminaire portion, a bottom luminaire portion, and an access cover assembly disposed therebetween, the access cover including an access cover which can be in an open position and a closed position, and formed of a body with a cavity therein with an operational component disposed within the cavity and McCavit (US 5,626,417), which discloses at least a luminaire including a top luminaire portion, a bottom luminaire portion, and an access cover assembly disposed therebetween, a transition component disposed between the access cover assembly and bottom luminaire portion, the access cover including an access cover and being formed of a body with a cavity therein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m.
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 5712727044. 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.
/ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights