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 .
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 1-3, 10, 11, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emerson US 12222095 in view of Hancock US PAT 8246203.
As for claim 1, Emerson discloses a mechanically sealed light emitting diode (LED) assembly (column 2 lines 41-48) with an improved ingress protection (allowing the circuit and optic to be sealed in the interior to protect it from dust and water, col 2 ln 41-48) and for use in an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (device is for a drone, see abstract, Fig 9), the mechanically sealed LED comprising: an LED assembly including: multiple LEDs (see 16, Fig 6) enclosed within a sealed LED cavity (shows LEDs 16 sealed within a single LED cavity rather than multiple cavities, see Fig 5) configured to prevent dust or water ingress (column 2 lines 41-48), thereby forming dry zones around the LEDs and enabling flight in varied environmental conditions without risk of damage to the LEDs (sealed and protected from water, therefore will remain dry and enables flight as claimed); and an ingress protection stack (see Fig 8, col 3 ln 4-8) configured to provide ingress protection to the LED assembly, the ingress protection stack including: an LED base layer (PCB 14, see Fig 6 and 7), seal components (O-ring 34 and a locking ring 36 which engage with the cooling fin body 28 or the tube 24 to seal the assembly against moisture, col 3 ln 4-5), a baffle (locking ring 36 is interpreted as a baffle since it obstructs the flow of fluid with a barrier by engaging to seal the assembly), and a cover glass (optic cover 26, Fig 8), wherein the seal components provide the ingress protection (o-ring 34 and a locking ring 36 engage with the cooling fin body 28 or the tube 24 to seal the assembly against moisture to provide ingress protection, see col 3 ln 4-8)
Emerson teaches enclosing the LED assembly within a single sealed cavity (see Fig 6-8), but fails to specifically teach enclosing the LED assembly within a plurality of sealed cavities. Hancock teaches an LED assembly having multiple cavities having multiple LEDs therein (see portion 10b, Figures 12 and 14 and second recessed portion shown in the same figures, each having a plurality of LEDs 28). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to look to the teachings of Hancock and utilize the LED module having a plurality of LED cavities having plural LEDs therein with the device of Emerson for applications where having greater luminance is desired in Emerson.
Regarding the sealing configuration, with regard to compressing the seal components against the LED base layer by the baffle to provide ingress protection, Emerson at least suggest an equivalent structure to the claimed sealing configuration for the purpose of sealing the assembly against moisture (see column 2 lines 61- col 3 ln 12 for moisture sealing configuration of Emerson) since In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") MPEP 2144.05 II A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to recognize Emerson’s structure as an equivalent sealing means for purpose of providing means of sealing the assembly against moisture (Emerson, col 3 ln 4-8).
2. Emerson in view of Hancock disclose the mechanically sealed LED assembly of claim 1, Emerson further teaches wherein the LED assembly is arranged in a night flight module of the UAV (Fig 9 shows the LED assembly within a module attached to the UAV, see 25, Fig 9; lighting device within 25 is interpreted as a night flight module since it is capable of being used at night).
3. Emerson in view of Hancock disclose the mechanically sealed LED assembly of claim 2, Emerson further teaches wherein the night flight module is detachably attachable to the UAV (col 3 ln 1-4; teaches that 25 is attachable/detachable to drone by mount screw).
As for claim 10, Emerson teaches a method of providing improved ingress protection for a light emitting diode (LED) assembly (col 2 ln 41-48, allows the circuit and optic to be sealed in the interior to protect it from dust and water) in an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)(see Fig 9 and abstract), the method comprising: providing an ingress protection stack to protect an LED assembly having multiple LEDs from an environmental ingress (see Fig 8, col 2 ln 41-48 and col 3 ln 4-10), the ingress protection stack including: an LED base layer (PCB 14, see Fig 6 and 7), seal components (O-ring 34 and a locking ring 36 which engage with the cooling fin body 28 or the tube 24 to seal the assembly against moisture, col 3 ln 4-5), a baffle (locking ring 36), and a cover glass (optic cover 26, see Fig 8); Emerson further teaches the o-ring 34 and a locking ring 36 engage with the cooling fin body 28 or the tube 24 to seal the assembly against moisture to provide ingress protection, see col 3 ln 4-8); and enclosing the LED assembly within a sealed cavity to prevent dust or water ingress (LEDs 16 are within sealed cavity formed by PCB 14 and holding body when o-ring and locking ring are engaged with body 28 or tube 24, see col 3 ln 4-10), thereby forming dry zones around the LEDs and enabling flight in varied environmental conditions without risk of damage to the LEDs (sealed and protected from water, therefore will remain dry and enables flight in varied environmental conditions).
Emerson teaches enclosing the LED assembly within a single sealed cavity (see Fig 6-8), but fails to teach enclosing the LED assembly within a plurality of sealed cavities. Hancock teaches an LED assembly having multiple cavities having multiple LEDs therein (see portion 10b, Figures 12 and 14 and second recessed portion shown in the same figures, each having a plurality of LEDs 28). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to look to the teachings of Hancock and utilize the LED module having a plurality of LED cavities having plural LEDs therein with the device of Emerson for applications where having greater luminance is desired in Emerson.
Regarding the sealing configuration, with regard to compressing the seal components against the LED base layer by the baffle to provide ingress protection, Emerson at least suggest an equivalent structure to the claimed sealing configuration for the purpose of sealing the assembly against moisture (see column 2 lines 61- col 3 ln 12 for moisture sealing configuration of Emerson) since In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") MPEP 2144.05 II A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to recognize Emerson’s structure as an equivalent sealing means for purpose of providing means of sealing the assembly against moisture (Emerson, col 3 ln 4-8).
11. Emerson in view of Hancock teach the method of claim 10, Emerson further comprising: arranging the LED assembly in a night flight module of the UAV (Fig 9 shows the LED assembly within a module attached to the UAV, see 25, Fig 9; lighting device within 25 is interpreted as a night flight module since it is capable of being used at night), wherein the night flight module is detachably attachable to the UAV(col 3 ln 1-4; teaches that 25 is attachable/detachable to drone by mount screw).
As for claim 17, Emerson discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (abstract, fig 9) including a night flight module (light module fig 6-8) arranged thereon (module 25 shown attached to drone in Fig 9), the night flight module comprising a mechanically sealed light emitting diode (LED) assembly (column 2 lines 41-48) for improved ingress protection (allowing the circuit and optic to be sealed in the interior to protect it from dust and water, col 2 ln 41-48)(device is for a drone, see abstract, Fig 9), the mechanically sealed LED assembly including multiple LEDs (see 16, Fig 6) enclosed within a sealed LED cavity (shows LEDs 16 sealed within a single LED cavity rather than multiple cavities, see Fig 5) configured to prevent dust or water ingress (column 2 lines 41-48), thereby forming dry zones around the LEDs and enabling flight in varied environmental conditions (sealed and protected from water, therefore will remain dry and enables flight as claimed); and an ingress protection stack (see Fig 8, col 3 ln 4-8) comprising a plurality of parts configured to provide ingress protection to the LED assembly (col 3 ln 4-6, “FIG. 8 also shows an O-ring 34 and a locking ring 36 which engage with the cooling fin body 28 or the tube 24 to seal the assembly against moisture”) the ingress protection stack including: an LED base layer (PCB 14, see Fig 6 and 7), seal components (O-ring 34 and a locking ring 36 which engage with the cooling fin body 28 or the tube 24 to seal the assembly against moisture, col 3 ln 4-5), a baffle (locking ring 36), and a cover glass (optic cover 26, Fig 8), wherein the seal components provide the ingress protection (o-ring 34 and a locking ring 36 engage with the cooling fin body 28 or the tube 24 to seal the assembly against moisture to provide ingress protection, see col 3 ln 4-8).
Emerson teaches enclosing the LED assembly within a single sealed cavity (see Fig 6-8), but fails to teach enclosing the LED assembly within a plurality of sealed cavities. Hancock teaches an LED assembly having multiple cavities having multiple LEDs therein (see portion 10b, Figures 12 and 14 and second recessed portion shown in the same figures, each having a plurality of LEDs 28). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to look to the teachings of Hancock and utilize the LED module having a plurality of LED cavities having plural LEDs therein with the device of Emerson for applications where having greater luminance is desired in Emerson.
Regarding the sealing configuration, with regard to compressing the seal components against the LED base layer by the baffle to provide ingress protection, Emerson at least suggest an equivalent structure to the claimed sealing configuration for the purpose of sealing the assembly against moisture (see column 2 lines 61- col 3 ln 12 for moisture sealing configuration of Emerson) since In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") MPEP 2144.05 II A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to recognize Emerson’s structure as an equivalent sealing means for purpose of providing means of sealing the assembly against moisture (Emerson, col 3 ln 4-8).
18. Emerson in view of Hancock disclose the mechanically sealed LED assembly of claim 17, Emerson further teaches wherein the night flight module is detachably attachable to the UAV (col 3 ln 1-4; teaches that 25 is attachable/detachable to drone by mount screw).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emerson US 12222095 in view of Hancock US PAT 8246203, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, respectively, and further in view of Green US 2019/0108785.
6. Emerson in view of Hancock disclose the mechanically sealed LED assembly of claim 1, but fail to further teach the cover glass comprises an adhesive layer used to bond the cover glass to the baffle. Green teaches the use of an adhesive layer as an attachment means for securing a transparent layer to an LED module (see abstract and claim 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to substitute the adhesive layer of Green in with the device of Emerson in view of Hancock to provide an alternate attachment means for securing the cover to the baffle.
14. Emerson in view of Hancock teach the method of claim 10, but fail to further teach wherein providing the ingress protection stack comprises: bonding the cover glass to the baffle using an adhesive layer. Green teaches the use of an adhesive layer as an attachment means for securing a transparent layer to an LED module (see abstract and claim 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to substitute the adhesive layer of Green in with the device of Emerson in view of Hancock to provide an alternate attachment means for bonding the the cover to the baffle.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emerson US 12222095 in view of Hancock US PAT 8246203, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ritter US 2017/0211721.
9. Emerson in view of Hancock teach the mechanically sealed LED assembly of claim 1, but fail to further teach that the baffle is an aluminum baffle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the baffle in Emerson & Hancock by using the baffle/locking ring made of aluminum of Ritter (see paragraph 0068), 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). See MPEP 2144.07. One would have been motivated to utilize aluminum, for example, where having a material known for being lightweight is desired in Emerson.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emerson US 12222095 in view of Hancock US PAT 8246203, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Bao US 2021/0285618.
19. Emerson in view of Hancock disclose the UAV of claim 18, Emerson further teaches the LED assembly is configured to prevent dust or water ingress to the LEDs (see Fig 8, col 3 ln 4-8), but is silent to further teach the assembly enhancing optical power output.
Bao teaches a lens portion 150 that increases the optical power of a collimating lens in a lighting device (see paragraph 0041). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the lens and related optical components of Bao with the light assembly of Emerson in view of Hancock to provide a sealed lighting assembly with a lens that increases optical power of a collimating lens; one would have been motivated to make this modification where altering the light emitted from the assembly to a more collimated beam is desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter; the prior art fails to teach or disclose:
4. The mechanically sealed LED assembly of claim 1, wherein the cover glass is a clear optical glass with a black mask configured to enhance optical transmission from the LEDs while blocking peripheral light to reduce glare or reflections interfering with one or more cameras of the UAV.
5. The mechanically sealed LED assembly of claim 1, wherein the ingress protection stack further comprises a heat-dissipating component, and wherein the baffle is mechanically secured through the LED base layer to establish thermal contact between the LED base layer and the heat-dissipating component.
7. The mechanically sealed LED assembly of claim 1, wherein the LED base layer is a base layer of the ingress protection stack and the cover glass is an exterior layer of the ingress protection stack.
8. The mechanically sealed LED assembly of claim 1, wherein the seal components comprise a silicone rubber compressible seal (o-ring is an equivalent to this), but fails to further teach a stainless steel stiffener, and an adhesive layer.
12. The method of claim 10, wherein enclosing the LEDs within the sealed LED cavities comprises: positioning the cover glass formed of a clear optical glass with a black mask, the cover glass being configured to (a) enhance optical output from the LEDs, and (b) block peripheral light to reduce glare or reflections that could interfere with one or more cameras of the UAV.
13. The method of claim 10, wherein providing the ingress protection stack further comprises: providing a heatsink, and mechanically securing the baffle through the LED base layer to the heatsink to establish a thermal contact between the LED base layer and the heatsink for thermal conduction.
15. The method of claim 10, wherein providing the ingress protection stack comprises: providing the LED base layer as a base layer of the ingress protection stack and the cover glass as an exterior layer of the ingress protection stack.
16. The method of claim 10, wherein providing the ingress protection stack comprises: providing the seal components including a silicone rubber compressible element, a stainless steel stiffener, and an adhesive layer.
20. The UAV of claim 17, wherein the ingress protection stack further comprises a heat-dissipating component, and wherein the baffle is mechanically secured through the LED base layer to establish thermal contact between the heat-dissipating component and the LED base layer for thermal conduction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. SHIMIKE US’008 discloses light assembly that comprises a heatsink, a plurality of light emitting diodes, and a lens. WILSON US’653 teaches an LED puck having a structure that resembles having multiple cavities with LEDs therein (portions of lenses/windows aligned with LEDs therein in Fig 2A). Olsson US’109 teaches an ingress-protection stack that achieves a water-tight seal for a light fixture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evan P Dzierzynski whose telephone number is (571)272-2336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm PST.
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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/EVAN P DZIERZYNSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875