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 .
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) 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danesh (US 2014/0254177 A1) in view of Patti et al. (US 2008/0112171 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
744
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
673
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Danesh teaches a pull-down-assembly for use in lighting applications, wherein the pull-down-assembly comprises:
a bracket (6) that is configured to be attached to a structure (2; figure 1) at a first-region of the bracket (6),
wherein the structure (2) is external and separate from the pull-down-assembly (4);
at least one linear-extension-subassembly (18, figure 3) that is attached to the bracket (6); and
a can (10) that is attached to the at least one linear-extension-subassembly (18), wherein the can (10) is configured to house at least most of at least one lighting-module (3; figure 1);
but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one linear-extension-subassembly is configured to permit linear movement of an entirety of the can as a single unit down or back up with respect to the bracket.
PNG
media_image3.png
711
503
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
707
517
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
733
498
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Patti et al. teaches a linear-extension-subassembly (130) is configured to permit linear movement of an entirety of the can as a single unit down or back up with respect to the bracket (see figures 28-31 which shows the assembly 130 being moved from an up position in the housing 50 to a down position).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Danesh to have the linear-extension subassembly to permit movement of an entirety of the can as a single unit down or back up as taught by Patti et al. so that the bulb may be readily and easily replaced (see paragraph [0052] of Patti et al.).
Regarding claim 2, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the first-region of the bracket (6) is located in between two opposing tabs (see figure 3) of the bracket (9).
Regarding claim 3, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the first-region of the bracket (6) comprises at least one aperture (see openings in bracket 6) that passes entirely through a thickness of the bracket (6; see figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 1, wherein when the bracket (6) is attached to the structure (2), the first-region of the bracket (6)is located below at least some portion of the structure (2).
Regarding claim 5, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 1, wherein the structure is an enclosure (2 is a housing).
Regarding claim 6, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least one linear-extension-subassembly (18) is attached to the bracket (6; figure 1) at a second-region of the bracket (6), wherein the second-region is distinct and separated from the first-region (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 6, wherein the second-region comprises at least one tab of the bracket (6; figure 1), wherein the bracket (6; see figures 1) comprises the at least one tab, wherein the at least one tab is configured to be attached to the at least one linear-extension-subassembly (18).
Regarding claim 8, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least one linear-extension-subassembly (18) is attached to the bracket (6; see figure 1) at an upper region of the at least one linear-extension-subassembly (18).
Regarding claim 9, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one linear-extension-subassembly (18) comprises a cover (26; see figure 1) and a descendable-ascendable-subassembly (see figure 1 ); wherein the cover is fixedly attached to the bracket (6); wherein the descendable-ascendable-subassembly is at least mostly held within the cover (26) in a retracted configuration; wherein a portion of the descendable-ascendable-subassembly is extendable out and below the cover (26) in an extended configuration (see figures 1)
Regarding claim 10, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 9, wherein the cover ( 26) has an opening at a bottom of the cover (see 26 in figure 1) for the portion of the descendable-ascendable-subassembly to exit the cover (26).
Regarding claim 11, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 9, wherein a region of the descendable-ascendable-subassembly always remains within the cover (10; figure 1A).
Regarding claim 12, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 9, wherein the descendable-ascendable-subassembly comprises a linkage-arm (18A and 18B), wherein the linkage-arm (18A) is attached to the can (10).
Regarding claim 13, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 12, wherein the linkage-arm (18A and 18B)) is attached to the can (10) in a manner that facilitates rotation of the can (5) with respect to the linkage-arm (18A and 18B) see figure 6).
Regarding claim 14, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 12, wherein the linkage-arm (18A and 18B) is slidable with respect to at least one member of the descendable-ascendable-subassembly (figure 1), wherein the descendable-ascendable-subassembly comprises the at least one member (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 14, wherein the linkage-arm (18A and 18B) is in direct physical communication with the at least one member of the descendable-ascendable-subassembly (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the pull-down-assembly comprises the at least one lighting-module (3), wherein the at least one lighting-module (3; paragraph [0018] discloses a lighting module 3) is at least mostly disposed within the can (10).
Regarding claim 19, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 1, wherein the pull-down-assembly comprises a trim (7); wherein the trim (7) is located under a bottom of the can (10).
Regarding claim 20, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 1, wherein the can (10) does not physically touch the bracket (6) during intended operation of the pull-down-assembly (4).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danesh(US 2014/0254177 A1) in view of Patti et al. (US 2008/0112171 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Stathes et al. (US 2015/0300612 A1).
PNG
media_image6.png
325
465
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Danesh modified by Patti et al. teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 1, but Danesh modified by Patti et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one linear-extension-subassembly is two separate and distinct linear-extension-subassemblies.
Stathes et al. teaches wherein the at least one linear-extension-subassembly is two separate and distinct linear-extension-subassemblies (42 and 44 are separate subassemblies).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Danesh to include two separate and distinct subassemblies as taught by Stathes et al. as an alternative way and design choice to achieve a desired illumination output since variable lighting is useful in creating a desired lighting ambiance (see paragraph [0049] of Stathes et al.).
Regarding claim 17, Danesh modified by Patti et al. and Stathes et al. teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 16, but Danesh is silent about wherein the two separate and distinct linear-extension-subassemblies are disposed opposite from each other with the can disposed in between the two separate and distinct linear-extension-subassemblies.
Stathes et al. teaches wherein the two separate and distinct linear-extension-subassemblies are disposed opposite from each other with the can (see figure 2) disposed in between the two separate and distinct linear-extension-subassemblies (see figure 2 where 42 and 44 are two separate and distinct assemblies).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Danesh to include two separate and distinct subassemblies as taught by Stathes et al. as an alternative way and design choice to achieve a desired illumination output since variable lighting is useful in creating a desired lighting ambiance (see paragraph [0049] of Stathes et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot after further consideration of applicant’s arguments, prior art of record and amendment of independent claim 1.
Applicant points out that the prior art does not explicitly teach a pull down assembly and can as claimed in claim 1. Specifically, applicant points out that the driver 4 of Danesh is interpreted as the claimed “pull-down assembly” is different from the claimed “pull down assembly”. Further applicant argues that the driver 4 of Danesh would be both the “pull down assembly” and the “can”. After further consideration of applicant’s arguments, the can is interpreted as numeral 10 of Danesh which is separate from driver 4.
Further, applicant amended claim 1 to include the limitation, “wherein the at least one linear-extension-subassembly is configured to permit linear movement of an entirety of the can as a single unit down or back up with respect to the bracket.” A new reference, Patti et al. (US 2008/0112171 A1), has been found to teach the newly added limitation. Claim 1 is now rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over Danesh (US 2014/0254177 A1) in view of Patti et al. (US 2008/0112171 A1).
Claims 2-20 remain rejected based on dependency on a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA MCMILLAN APENTENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 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, 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.
/JESSICA M APENTENG/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights