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 .
Specification
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a first protrusion and a first protrusion” is redundant and is suggested to read as “a first protrusion and a second protrusion,” which is more consistent with antecedent bases for later (e.g., Claims 8 and 12). Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,410,901 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application and patent commonly recite the same limitations to the lighting device with the exception that the limitations are in different claim combinations [see chart below].
U.S. Application 19/244,146
U.S. Patent 12,410,901 B2
Claims 1 and 15
(note optical lens found in Claim 15)
Claim 1 // Claim 7
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 11
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Labas (U.S. Patent 11,255,496 B2).
With regards to Claim 1, Labas discloses a lighting device [Figures 1-4] including:
A lighting module including a substrate [(36) // (10)] having a length in a second direction longer than a width in a first direction [note Figures 1-3], a plurality of light source [(30) // (8)] arranged in the second direction on the substrate, a light guide portion [(26) // (6)] disposed on the substrate and the light sources; and
A reflective member [e.g., (24) or (24, 40) // (4) – Column 7, Lines 23-24, 51-55] including an insertion hole [note Figures 2-3 – where (26) // (6) is inserted] in which the light guide portion is disposed, and a reflective portion to both sides of the insertion hole and covering both sides of the light guide portion [note Figures 2-3: (24) // (4) is on both sides of (26) // (6)],
Wherein the light guide portion and the insertion hole have a width in the first direction smaller than a length direction in the second direction [note Figures 1-4], and
Wherein an upper end of the reflective portion is positioned higher than an upper end of the light guide portion [note Figures 1-3: upper end of (24) // (4) are higher than the upper end of (26) / (6)].
With regards to Claim 2, Labas discloses a diffusion layer (42) that diffuses light on the light guide portion, wherein an upper end of the diffusion layer is positioned higher than the upper end of the reflective portion [note Figures 2-3: middle portion of (42) is higher than (24)].
With regards to Claim 3, Labas discloses a width of a lower surface of the diffusion layer (42) in the first direction is the same as a width of an upper surface of the light guide portion (26) in the first direction [note Figures 2-4].
With regards to Claim 4, Labas discloses a length of the lower surface of the diffusion layer (42) in the second direction is the same as a length of the upper surface of the light guide portion (26) in the second direction [note Figures 2-4].
With regards to Claim 5, Labas discloses the width of the lower surface of the diffusion layer (42) in the first direction is larger than a width of an upper surface of the diffusion layer [note Figures 2-3: upper surface defined to be the middle semicircular portion of (42) as broadly interpreted].
With regards to Claim 6, Labas discloses the diffusion layer (42) including a first region (arbitrary, relative) at a lower portion thereof, and a second region (arbitrary, relative) disposed on the first region and having a width smaller than a width of the first region [note Figures 2-3: upper surface/region defined to be the middle semicircular portion of (42) as broadly interpreted].
With regards to Claim 7, Labas discloses the reflective member (24) including a first protrusion and a (first) second protrusion [note Figures 2-3: (40) or bottom (22)] protruding inwardly from upper ends on both sides of the insertion hole [note Figures 2-3].
With regards to Claim 8, Labas discloses the first protrusion and the second protrusion [note Figures 2-3: (40) or bottom (22)] overlap in a vertical direction with the light guide portion (26), wherein the vertical direction is a direction from the substrate toward the light guide portion [note Figures 2-3].
With regards to Claim 9, Labas discloses a minimum distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion [note Figures 2-3: (40) or bottom (22)] in the first direction being smaller than a width of an upper surface of the light guide portion [note Figures 2-3: (26) is larger].
With regards to Claim 10, Labas discloses the reflective member (24, 40) overlaps with the substrate (36) in a vertical direction from the substrate toward the light guide portion [note Figure 3].
With regards to Claim 11, Labas discloses a diffusion layer (14) that diffuses light on the light guide portion (6), wherein the reflective member includes a first protrusion and a (first) second protrusion that protrude inwardly from upper ends of both sides of the insertion hole [note Figures 1A-B: (4) has inward first and second protrusions on both sides of the insertion hole], and wherein the diffusion layer (14) is disposed between the first protrusion and the second protrusion [note Figures 1A-B].
With regards to Claim 13, Labas discloses the first and second protrusion [note Figures 1A-B: (4) has inward first and second protrusions on both sides of the insertion hole] overlap in a vertical direction with the light guide portion (6), and wherein the vertical direction is a direction from the substrate (10) toward the light guide portion [note Figures 1A-B].
With regards to Claim 14, Labas discloses a thickness of the diffusion layer (14) is smaller than a thickness of the light guide portion (6), wherein the thickness of the light guide portion (6) is larger than a width of the light guide portion in the first direction [note Figures 1A-B: the lower thickness (6) is larger than a width of the light guide portion, as broadly interpreted], and wherein an area of an upper surface of the diffusion layer (14) is smaller than an area of a lower surface of the light guide portion (6) [note Figures 1A-B].
With regards to Claim 15, Labas discloses an optical lens (42) spaced from an upper surface of the light guide portion (26), wherein an upper surface of the light sources (30) is positioned higher than a lower surface of the light guide portion [note Figure 2].
With regards to Claim 16, Labas discloses a width of the substrate (36) in the first direction is larger than a width of a lower surface of the light guide portion [arbitrary, relative with regards to the “portion” of (26)].
With regards to Claim 17, Labas discloses the reflective member (24) includes a first recess (46) in which the substrate (36) is received at a lower portion of the reflective member [note Figure 3].
With regards to Claim 18, Labas discloses a housing [e.g., (18)] disposed under the reflective member (4) and the substrate (10) [note Figure 1B: (18) is under the protrusions of (4) and substrate (10)].
With regards to Claim 19, Labas discloses the housing (18) horizontally overlaps with lower portions of both sides of the reflective member (4) [note Figure 1B].
With regards to Claim 20, Labas discloses the housing (18) having both side extension portions (broad, relative) that contact or is coupled with the lower portions of both sides of the reflective member (4), wherein the both side extension portions of the housing vertically overlap with the lower portions of both sides of the reflective member [note Figure 1B: (18) overlaps with (4)], and wherein the vertical direction is a direction from the substrate toward the light guide portion (6) [note Figure 1B].
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labas (U.S. Patent 11,255,496 B2).
With regards to Claim 12, Labas discloses the claimed invention as cited above, but does not specifically teach a minimum distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion is smaller than a width of a lower surface of the diffusion layer and larger than a width of an upper surface of the diffusion layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the shape of the reflective member such that the minimum distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion is smaller than a width of a lower surface of the diffusion layer and larger than a width of an upper surface of the diffusion layer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker that mere change of form or shape of an invention involves only routine skill in the art [In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) – MPEP 2144.05]. In this case, changing the shape of the reflective member such that the minimum distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion is smaller than a width of a lower surface of the diffusion layer and larger than a width of an upper surface of the diffusion layer would alter the illumination, or to change the aesthetic appeal of the lighting device, as desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but is not considered exhaustive: U.S. Patent 6,074,074 to Marcus that teaches a lighting device with a width smaller than a length of the device [note Figures 1-17].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2207. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
Tuesday, December 23, 2025
/Jason M Han/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875