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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-22 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. With respect to Applicant’s arguments with traverse, specifically that there is no search burden on Examiner as both groups are classified in G03b15/0442: constructional details of the flash apparatus and arrangement of lamps, reflectors, or the light; the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
G03b15/0442 is directed towards specific arrangements between a flash light source and a reflector. It is not directed towards the details of the reflectors (G03b2215/0582), nor details of mounting of reflectors, F21v1/00-20. The bracket and manner of mounting the reflectors is a patentably distinct invention in view of the magnetic reflector structure currently claimed. The Examiner notes that a continuation may be filed to examine nonelected claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “a diffractor… configured to create a shadow within the reflected light, accordingly , forming an umbra, penumbra, and antumbra in the reflected light”. The limitation “diffractor” has been interpreted as “a structure that causes diffraction of light”. The Examiner finds that all opaque or light blocking materials create diffractive patterns of light along the edge of the opaque structure. Furthermore, any light blocking material will necessarily form an umbra, penumbra, and antumbra in the diffused and reflected light. The Examiner is unclear on what specific structure is required by the diffractor or what is required by the reflected light for form the shadows. The Examiner suggests further defining the structure of the diffractor and reflective surface to further define the invention.
Claim 9 recites “the coating defines a matte finish”. Claim 9 depends from claim 1 which sets forth that the coating is “configured to reflect and diffuse light”. The claims appear to contradict each other, as “matte” is generally used to mean “nonreflective” or “with minimal reflections”. It is unclear what specific quality the limitation is intended to impart on the claim. The Examiner has interpreted “matte finish” to require that it “diffuses light”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser (U.S. 9,648,217) in view of Beverly (U.S. 6,234,638).
Regarding claim 1, Kaiser teaches a light reflector (100) comprising:
a reflector body (body, see fig 1, 2), the reflector body being opaque and having a front surface (opaque body with mirror surface 133); and
a coating (3mm mirror glass coating, see col. 5 lines 28-60, applied via adhesive) applied to the front surface of the reflector body, the coating configured to reflect light from one or more light sources (ambient light, external light), wherein one or more of the reflector body (reflector body comprises magnets 146, 148, magnets may be significantly larger or numerous, see col. 5 lines 28-60) or the coating comprises a ferromagnetic material.
Kaiser does not teach that the coating is configured to diffuse light from the one or more light sources.
Beverly teaches a reflector configured to diffuse light from the one or more light sources (diffusing reflector 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the mirror finish of Kaiser a diffuse reflective surface as taught by Beverly to achieve desired diffuse bounce light and avoid glares or harsh lighting in the photographs, see col. 1 line 55-67).
Regarding claim 2, Kaiser teaches further comprising one or more lighting devices (mobile device 50, light device with screen) removably connected to the front surface of the light reflector.
Regarding claim 3, Kaiser teaches wherein: the light reflector is configured to reflect the reflected light along a reflected light axis (perpendicular to player surface); and
each lighting device (50) is configured to emit light along an artificial light axis that is parallel to the reflected light axis of the reflected light from the reflector body, thus simultaneously mixing the reflected light and the artificial light from each lighting device to create a mixed lighting effect on a subject (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Kaiser teaches that each lighting device comprises:
a housing (phone body 50 and fastener 208);
a light (backlight for screen) housed within the housing; and
one or more magnets (magnets 234, 236) disposed within the housing and configured to magnetically engage with the reflector body to removably connect the housing onto the front surface of the reflector body (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kaiser teaches further comprising a diffractor (fastener 208) removably connected to the reflector body, wherein the diffractor is configured to create a shadow within the reflected light, accordingly, forming an umbra, penumbra, and antumbra in the reflected light (specifically forms all parts of the shadow as it is an opaque body).
Regarding claim 6, Kaiser teaches wherein the diffractor is magnetically connected to the reflector body via a magnetic base (magnetically coupled via 234, 236).
Regarding claim 8, Beverly teaches that the reflector body comprises steel (steel strapping 54, 56).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used steel in the structure of Kaiser as taught by Beverly as steel is a well known durable material that is cheap to manufacture and may be used in an elastic, as taught by Beverly, or rigid manner. The Examiner notes that the reflector body of Kaiser is taught as being ABS plastic, however the Examiner finds that steel would be substantially equivalent.
Regarding claim 9, Beverly teaches that the coating defines a matte finish (diffusive reflector).
Regarding claim 12, Kaiser teaches further comprising a light source (light source 470, 478, see fig. 26) coupled to a backside of the light reflector (see fig. 27, arm structure connects to backside of the light reflector), the light source having a light emitting portion configured to illuminate at least a portion of a front side of the light reflector (see fig. 26, illuminates subject).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser in view of Beverly, further in view of Cai (U.S. 2013/0279174).
Regarding claim 10, Kaiser teaches that the coating comprises an adhesive (see col. 5, adhesive).
Kaiser does not teach that the coating comprises a plurality of first reflective particles, and a plurality of second reflective particles which are less reflective than the first reflective particles.
Cai teaches that the coating comprises a plurality of first reflective particles, and a plurality of second reflective particles which are less reflective than the first reflective particles (see p. 0035-0038, may use a combination of pigments and particles to reflect different amounts of wavelength).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used multiple reflective particles as taught by Cai in the diffuse reflective surface of Kaiser and Beverly to achieve higher levels of reflection across the wavelength spectrum, see p. 0048-0049.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser in view of Beverly, further in view of Bauer (U.S. 7,626,749).
Regarding claim 11, Kaiser does not teach that the coating comprises a paint containing the ferromagnetic material.
Bauer teaches that the coating comprises a paint containing the ferromagnetic material (see col. 58 lines 9-23, sputtering of stainless steel with chromium)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the stainless steel paint of Bauer as the coating of Kaiser to provide a highly durable structure with high strength and reflectivity, see col. 58 of Bauer, see col. 46 of Bauer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 7 recites, inter alia, “the reflector body further comprises a diffractor hole; the diffractor comprises an annular head and a rod extending rearwardly from the head; the rod of the diffractor is configured to extended through the diffractor hole of the reflector body when the diffractor is assembled to the reflector body; and the diffractor is configured to be adjustable by sliding the rod relative to the reflector body to accordingly translate the head closer to or further away from the front surface of the reflector body to thereby respectively increase or decrease the size of the shadow created by the diffractor.”
Although diffractors are well known in the art of photographic lighting, and are taught as being modular or adjustable, see Zhu (U.S. 10,268,105 col. 5 line 64-col. 6 line 26, magnetic deflector 12 that can be at different lengths based on magnetic insert 11), the Examiner finds that the combination of this kind of diffractor with Kaiser would not be obvious as Kaiser teaches the planar mirror being combined with a mobile device. I.e. the diffractor of Zhu would block the mobile device from being able to take photographs, eliminating the essential function of Kaiser.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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