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 25 September 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-14 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 8 being independent.
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 “...wherein the refractor is positioned to allow light from the lighting module to pass through the top aperture and the bottom aperture...” as recited in claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-14 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 8, the limitation recites: “gabs” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what structural feature a gab is intended to define in the scope of the claim as presently presented. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as a gap. Clarification from the Applicant is requested and appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claims 1 and 8, respectively.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, the limitation recites: “...the reflector...” which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim, as no reflector has been previously introduced. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as referring to the previously introduced refractor. Clarification from the Applicant is requested and appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US 2015/0055340 A1, herein referred to as: Maeda).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda teaches or suggests an outdoor lighting fixture (Figs. 1A-13C) comprising: a housing (the base, and/or any of various electronics housings shown in Figs. 11, 12 and 13C); a lighting module (130, 930) that is coupled to the housing (at the base of each embodiment); and a refractor (a CATOD, e.g., 107, see Fig. 1D) coupled to the outdoor lighting fixture (at the base of the fixture, as shown in various embodiments throughout Figs. 1A-13C) including an inner surface (an inner surface of 110, note [0030]) and an outer surface (an outer surface of 110, note paragraph [0030]) that form at least one side wall (as shown in Figs. 1A-1C, having 111 and/or optically transmissive elements formed therein), a top aperture (106) and a bottom aperture (this may be an aperture formed at the bottom of 110, or an aperture formed by 111 at a bottom of the sidewall of 110, or an aperture formed above 130 in element 120, note paragraph [0055], the entire CATOD can be single cast or molded), wherein the refractor is positioned to allow light from the lighting module (130) to pass through the top aperture and the bottom aperture (as shown in Figs. 1A-1C).
Maeda does not explicitly teach, all in a single embodiment, the refractor also includes a coupling feature including a portion extending above a top edge of the at least one side wall; and wherein the coupling feature forms a ventilation gap between the refractor and the housing; and wherein a plurality of the coupling features are provided and are positioned distal from the at least one side wall and the refractor only comes in direct contact with the housing or other components of the lighting fixture at a contact point of the portion of coupling feature extending above the top edge to form a plurality of the ventilation gaps between respective coupling features and between the refractor and the housing allowing airflow to reduce overheating on the luminaire.
Maeda alternatively teaches, in the embodiment of Figs. 9-10, the refractor (the CATODs 910 and 1010) also includes a coupling feature (915, 1015, respectively) including a portion (917, 1017) extending above a top edge of the at least one side wall (e.g., for mounting of the CATOD in a fixture such as that shown in Fig. 12, a socket on the ceiling would result in the portions 917 and 1017 extending above a top edge of the at least one side wall to the base, as shown in Figs. 9-10); and wherein the coupling feature forms a ventilation gap (916, 1016) between the refractor and the housing (both mounting portions are between the base portion of the housing and the refractor, as are said ventilation gaps); and wherein a plurality of the coupling features are provided (as shown in Figs. 9-10) and are positioned distal from the at least one side wall (said coupling features extend from the top edge toward the base, distal from the sidewall, as shown in Figs. 9-10) and the refractor only comes in direct contact with the housing or other components of the lighting fixture at a contact point of the portion of coupling feature extending above the top edge (at the top surface of the base, as shown in Figs. 9-10) to form a plurality of the ventilation gaps between respective coupling features and between the refractor and the housing allowing airflow to reduce overheating on the luminaire (as shown in Figs. 9-10, and as described in paragraphs [0059] and [0062]).
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 Maeda and incorporated the teachings of the refractor also includes a coupling feature including a portion extending above a top edge of the at least one side wall; and wherein the coupling feature forms a ventilation gap between the refractor and the housing; and wherein a plurality of the coupling features are provided and are positioned distal from the at least one side wall and the refractor only comes in direct contact with the housing or other components of the lighting fixture at a contact point of the portion of coupling feature extending above the top edge to form a plurality of the ventilation gaps between respective coupling features and between the refractor and the housing allowing airflow to reduce overheating on the luminaire, such as alternatively taught or suggested by Maeda, 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 the performance and/or the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing a mounting feature to increase or otherwise allow cooling of the lighting device).
Regarding claim 2, Maeda teaches or suggests (Figs. 1A-13C) the refractor is made from a transparent, refractive, material (paragraphs [0030] and [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda teaches or suggests (Figs. 1A-13C) the refractor has a cross-sectional shape that is generally circular, rectangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, elliptical, octagonal c-shape, hyperbolic, or elliptical (as shown in Figs. 1A-1D).
Regarding claim 8, Maeda teaches or suggests a refractor (a CATOD, e.g., 107, see Fig. 1D) for an outdoor lighting fixture (Figs. 1A-13C) comprising: inner surface (an inner surface of 110, note [0030]) and an outer surface (an outer surface of 110, note paragraph [0030]) that form at least one side wall (as shown in Figs. 1A-1C, having 111 and/or optically transmissive elements formed therein), a top aperture (106) and a bottom aperture (this may be an aperture formed at the bottom of 110, or an aperture formed by 111 at a bottom of the sidewall of 110, or an aperture formed above 130 in element 120, note paragraph [0055], the entire CATOD can be single cast or molded).
Maeda does not explicitly teach, all in a single embodiment, a plurality of coupling features including a portion extending above a top edge of the at least one sidewall, the portion extends from the at least one side wall so that when the refractor is coupled to the lighting fixture, only the plurality of contact points of the refractor are in direct contact with the lighting fixture and form a ventilation gaps between respective coupling features and between the refractor and the lighting fixture.
Maeda alternatively teaches, in the embodiment of Figs. 9-10, a plurality of coupling features (915, 1015, respectively) including a portion (917, 1017) extending above a top edge of the at least one sidewall (e.g., for mounting of the CATOD in a fixture such as that shown in Fig. 12, a socket on the ceiling would result in the portions 917 and 1017 extending above a top edge of the at least one side wall to the base, as shown in Figs. 9-10), the portion extends from the at least one side wall so that when the refractor is coupled to the lighting fixture, only the plurality of contact points of the refractor are in direct contact with the lighting fixture (as shown in Figs. 9-10, i.e., the contact points are only in direct contact with a base of the lighting fixture, and as described in paragraphs [0059] and [0062]) and form a ventilation gaps (916, 1016) between respective coupling features and between the refractor and the lighting fixture (as shown in Figs. 9-10, and as described in paragraphs [0059] and [0062]).
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 Maeda and incorporated the teachings of a plurality of coupling features including a portion extending above a top edge of the at least one sidewall, the portion extends from the at least one side wall so that when the refractor is coupled to the lighting fixture, only the plurality of contact points of the refractor are in direct contact with the lighting fixture and form a ventilation gaps between respective coupling features and between the refractor and the lighting fixture, such as alternatively taught or suggested by Maeda, 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 the performance and/or the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing a mounting feature to increase or otherwise allow cooling of the lighting device).
Regarding claim 9, Maeda teaches or suggests (Figs. 1A-13C) the refractor is made from a transparent, refractive, material (paragraphs [0030] and [0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Maeda teaches or suggests (Figs. 1A-13C) the refractor has a cross-sectional shape that is generally circular, rectangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, elliptical, octagonal c-shape, hyperbolic, or elliptical (as shown in Figs. 1A-1D).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, in view of Li et al. (CN 214198415 U, herein referred to as: Li).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Maeda does not explicitly teach that the refractor has an elongated structure having a generally cross-sectional rectangular shape with rounded corners along its longitudinal axis.
Li teaches or suggests (Fig. 3) the refractor has an elongated structure having a generally cross-sectional rectangular shape with rounded corners along its longitudinal axis (as shown in Fig. 3).
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 Maeda and incorporated the teachings of the refractor with an elongated structure having a generally cross-sectional rectangular shape with rounded corners along its longitudinal axis, such as taught or suggested by Li, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to increase, or otherwise improve, the marketability and/or utility of the device (i.e., by providing an embodiment by which the device can be utilized in applications requiring wide area lighting, and/or for applications requiring a rectangular luminaire with rounded corners along its longitudinal axis).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0348016 A1, herein referred to as: Liu).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Maeda does not explicitly teach that the plurality of the coupling features includes a buttress for support.
Liu teaches or suggests (Figs. 8-9) the plurality of the coupling features (63) includes a buttress (64) for support (as shown in Figs. 8-9).
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 Maeda and incorporated the teachings of the plurality of the coupling features includes a buttress for support, such as taught or suggested by Liu, in order to improve the longevity and/or performance of the device (e.g., by incorporating a buttress at corners of the coupling features to improve the structural support provided to and by the coupling features to the elements supported thereby).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, in view of Barnes (US 3,284,625 A).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Maeda does not explicitly teach that at least one of the inner surfaces and the outer surface has a plurality of prismatic surfaces or ridges designed to help diffuse light generated by the lighting modules.
Barnes teaches or suggests (Figs. 3-4) at least one of the inner surfaces and the outer surface has a plurality of prismatic surfaces or ridges (see Fig. 4) designed the help diffuse light generated by the lighting modules (“element 26 has an outer side 36 which is smooth and an inner side 38 provided with small diffusing prisms as shown in Fig. 4”).
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 Maeda and incorporated the teachings of at least one of the inner surfaces and the outer surface has a plurality of prismatic surfaces or ridges designed the help diffuse light generated by the lighting modules, such as taught or suggested by Barnes, in order to improve the efficiency, brightness and/or the utility of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment with light diffusion elements to increase the spread and uniformity of light emitted from the device), and/or improve the appearance by further concealing the light sources from direct view by a user, also reducing glare.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2015/0267909 A1, herein referred to as: Suzuki).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, as are best understood, Maeda does not explicitly teach that one side wall of the refractor is a valley side wall that includes a valley having a valley top edge that is lower than the top edge of the side wall of the refractor, wherein the valley forms a valley gap between the housing and the refractor.
Suzuki teaches or suggests (Fig. 5) one side wall of the refractor (a sidewall of 14 at the bottom of a 71 which extends from 16a) is a valley side wall that includes a valley having a valley top edge that is lower than the top edge of the side wall of the refractor (as shown in Fig. 5, i.e. a bottom of 71 extending from 16a in reference to Fig. 5 forms a valley sidewall including a valley having a valley top edge that forms a bottom of 71 that is lower than the top edge of the side wall of the refractor), wherein the valley forms a valley gap (71) between the housing and the refractor (as shown in Fig. 5, note 12 and 14 can be formed integrally of a polymer, paragraph [0059], thus, 12, 14 collectively constitute the refractor).
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 Maeda and incorporated the teachings of one side wall of the refractor is a valley side wall that includes a valley having a valley top edge that is lower than the top edge of the side wall of the refractor, wherein the valley forms a valley gap between the housing and the refractor, such as taught or suggested by Suzuki, 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 the performance and/or the efficiency of the device (e.g., by providing additional cooling features to the refractor).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please see US-3355612-A to Peek, Jr., US-20070195527-A1 to Russell, US-20130016508-A1 to Progl, US-20130121006-A1 to Moshtagh, US-9423110-B1 to Newton, and US-20020105810-A1 to Alley, pertinent to the ventilation gaps.
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