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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 6/6/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 6/7/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
The Examiner believes the applicant intended claims 6 and 7 to depend from claim 5 because they both recite the “perforated disc”. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for lack of antecedent basis, but are objected to as allowable only because the Examiner believes they properly depend from claim 5. To be clear, their allowable subject matter relies on claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
The Examiner believes the applicant intended claim 9 to depend from claim 8 because it recites the “charging base”. Claims 9 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for lack of antecedent basis, but would be allowable if it depended from claim 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Moreover, the Examiner wishes this answered on the record: is the second magnet of claim 9 critical to the practice of the invention? Yes or no? Why or why not? If this second magnet is somehow critical to how this lamp functions, then it needs to be recited in the independent claim. Omission of this element in the independent claim is only acceptable by argument—if the applicant fails to properly argue why the second magnet isn’t critical, then this objection will mature to a rejection over 35 USC 112(a) for missing essential elements.
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 “a first layer of LEDs facing downwards, a second level of LEDs illuminating laterally, and a third layer of LEDs facing upwards” as recited in claim 2, and the “two homologous reliefs included on the charging base” as recited in claim 10, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
It is the Examiner’s precedent to consider all features claimed but not drawn at initial filing to be obvious and well-motivated to a PHOSITA—if the undrawn element was critical to the applicant’s invention, then it would have been captured at filing. An argument that a PHOSITA does not require drawings for the claimed element will be considered equivalent to the admission of obviousness for the feature. Further, drawing objections cannot be held in abeyance—responding to this office action without either I. filing drawings that include the element, II. specifically and successfully pointing where the element has been drawn, III. admitting obviousness, or IV. cancelling the limitation in question will be considered a non-compliant response.
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
Claim 10 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.
In regard to claim 10, the applicant recites “two parallel grooves are provided on the lower face of the base (20) for receiving two homologous reliefs included on the charging base (34).” It can be clearly seen from the annotated Figure 2 below that the applicant never disclosed “two homologous reliefs included on the charging base (34)”. The charging base is some sort of disc—it does not have a feature that mates with the two grooves of the base. This is neither discussed nor depicted.
PNG
media_image1.png
248
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
In regard to claim 1, line 4, the applicant recites the limitation of “the housing”. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In regard to claim 1, line 5, the applicant recites the limitation of “the casing”. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In regard to claim 1, line 8, the applicant recites the limitation of “the lampshade”. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. The proper antecedent is “the lampshade or other element”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-11 are further rejected for depending on claim 1.
In regard to claim 3, the applicant recites the limitation of “the first level of LEDs facing downwards”. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In regard to claim 4, the applicant recites the limitation of “the second level of side-facing LEDs”. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In regard to claim 6, the applicant recites the limitation of “the perforated disc”. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In regard to claim 7, the applicant recites the limitation of “the perforated disc”. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In regard to claim 8, the applicant recites the limitation of “the mains”. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In regard to claim 8, the applicant recites the limitation of “for connection to the mains is included.” This doesn’t mean anything is American English. At best, there is some connection to power, and will be interpretated as such. Appropriate correction is required.
In regard to claim 9, the applicant recites the limitation of “the charging base”. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In regard to claim 10, the applicant recites the limitation of “the charging base”. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong et al (US 2023/0383915 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Jeong et al disclose a1 lighting device capable of being coupled to a lampshade or other element (130), comprising a coupling magnet (see [0006] stake and lighting source mate by “first” and “second magnet”), said lighting device comprising:
- an outer casing (upper half of 110);
- a base (lower half of 110) for enclosing the housing at the bottom;
- at least one printed circuit board received between the casing and the base, and comprising LEDs (102/104);
characterised in that a first magnet (“second magnet” see [0006] also 115 in Figure 3) is attached to the base to join with the coupling magnet so as to ensure coupling between the lighting device and the lampshade. (Figures 1-6; see at least [0022] onward)
In regard to claim 8, Jeong et al disclose a charging base with a cable for connection to the mains is included. (This broad—the charging base could be some hardware holding circuitry, the cable is any circuit trace, and the mains can be the solar panel.)
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(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (US 2023/0383915 A1) in view of Lin (US 2025/0306260 A1).
In regard to claim 2, Jeong et al fail to disclose the LEDs are arranged in this manner:
- a first layer of LEDs facing downwards;
- a second level of LEDs illuminating laterally;
- a third layer of LEDs facing upwards.
Jeong et al is actually silent on the number and types of LEDs.
Lin teaches- a first layer of LEDs facing downwards; - a second level of LEDs illuminating laterally (under BRI, the bottom ones can be split in half, the bottom LEDs emit to both the side and bottom—Lambertian distribution, sure, but there’s still light under BRI); - a third layer of LEDs facing upwards. (Figure 4; see at least [0055])
Any combination of LEDs can be imagined for Jeong et al, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to duplicate the number of LEDs, such as in combination with Lin, in the light source in multiple directions in order to make a brighter light source.
This limitation lacks criticality by applicant admission.
In regard to claim 3 and 4, Jeong et al fail to disclose the first level of LEDs facing downwards has maximum luminous intensity, and as recited in claim 4, that the second level of side-facing LEDs has medium luminous intensity.
However, shaping a light distribution is a known art for a PHOSITA, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide different light sources with different intensities in order to optimize the resulting light distribution.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (US 2023/0383915 A1).
In regard to claim 10, Jeong et al fail to disclose two parallel grooves are provided on the lower face of the base for receiving two homologous reliefs included on the charging base. However, providing internal grooves in housings to provide wiring spaces is notoriously old and well-known, and it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide two parallel grooves are provided on the lower face of the base for receiving two homologous reliefs included on the charging base in order to wire the electronics.
Further, as argued above, due to lack of drawings, this limitation lacks criticality.
In regard to claim 11, Jeong et al fail to disclose a wireless control module configured to enable remote operation of the lighting device, wherein said wireless control module is adapted to:
allow pairing of the lighting device with one or more additional lighting devices to form a controllable group;
enable selection of preconfigured or user-defined lighting scenes; and
communicate via a wireless protocol selected from radio frequency (RF), Bluetooth, or Wi-Fi.
The Examiner takes official notice that wireless control module’s of this type are notoriously old and well-known, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a wireless control module in order to allow the lamp of Jeong et al to be controlled by smartphone.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-72 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art taken as a whole does not show nor suggest a lighting device capable of being coupled to a lampshade or other element, comprising a coupling magnet, said lighting device comprising an outer casing, a base for enclosing the housing at the bottom, at least one printed circuit board received between the casing and the base, and comprising LEDs, characterised in that a first magnet is attached to the base to join with the coupling magnet so as to ensure coupling between the lighting device and the lampshade, wherein the outer casing comprises a lower portion substantially cylindrical ending with an upper portion truncated cone-shaped, superiorly closed by a perforated disc as specifically called for the claimed combinations.
The closest prior art, Jeong et al (US 2023/0383915 A1), does not include the outer casing comprises a lower portion substantially cylindrical ending with an upper portion truncated cone-shaped, superiorly closed by a perforated disc as required by the claim and there is no motivation absent the applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the Jeong et al reference in the manner required by the claims.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art taken as a whole does not show nor suggest a lighting device capable of being coupled to a lampshade or other element, comprising a coupling magnet, said lighting device comprising an outer casing, a base for enclosing the housing at the bottom, at least one printed circuit board received between the casing and the base, and comprising LEDs, characterised in that a first magnet is attached to the base to join with the coupling magnet so as to ensure coupling between the lighting device and the lampshade, a charging base with a cable for connection to the mains is included, and wherein the charging base is closed by a cap so as to keep a second magnet fixed to the charging base as specifically called for the claimed combinations.
The closest prior art, Jeong et al (US 2023/0383915 A1), does not include wherein the charging base is closed by a cap so as to keep a second magnet fixed to the charging base as required by the claim and there is no motivation absent the applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the Jeong et al reference in the manner required by the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Qiu (US 12,385,609 B1) disclose a magnetic lamp.
Cao (US 12,352,395 B1) disclose a magnetic lamp.
Jiang (US 12,313,245 B1) disclose a magnetic lamp.
Cao (US 12,000,545 B1) disclose magnetic lamp.
Gardi (US 2009/0207611 A1) disclose a lamp.
Lufti (EP 1 686 312 A1) discloses a magnetic lamp.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 6:00 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, James (Jong-Suk) 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
1 The Examiner is not going to object to it, but an article at the start of a preamble sounds better. “A lighting device…” or “The lighting device…”
2 See 112(b) rejections of claim 1. See claim objection of claim 9.