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 on 7/3/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: a variety of issues, none of which amounting to indefiniteness under 112(b), such having been discussed in both the parent case and the instant case with applicant’s representative. Please see below for the Examiner’s suggested corrections. Appropriate correction is required.
1. An LED navigation light, comprising a flexible electrical circuit carrying LEDs, the flexible electrical circuit wrapped around a core with at least one of the LEDs facing inward toward the inside of the core, and with light output from the inward facing LEDs being shaped by at least one of walls of openings in the core and
Claims 3-5 and 9, remove all instances of “(all-around)”
Claim 9, remove parenthesis around “(while maintaining the required cutoff angles)”
12. The LED navigation light system of claim 2, wherein at least one light sensor is a component of at least one of the LEDs intensity to determine if the intensity meets a predefined level, a signal from the at least one sensorat least one of automatically adjust an intensity of the LEDs and[[/or]] trigger an alert if the intensity is at or below a threshold.
14. The LED navigation light system of claim 1, wherein the one of: pivoting connection to the pole, or a motorized base that moves the pole up and down via a controlled motor.
Claim 16, remove instance of "(higher or lower if the core axis is vertical, i.e., stacked above one another)"
17. The LED navigation light system of claim 15, wherein at least one light sensor is a component of at least one of the LEDs intensity to determine if the intensity meets a predefined level.
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 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,428,113. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are a nearly identical but slightly broader recitation of that which is already patented.
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.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Bommel et al. (US 2019/0212004), hereinafter Van Bommel.
In regards to claim 15, Van Bommel discloses in Figures 5 and 9, an LED navigation (considered intended use, “navigation” is not given patentable weight in this case) light (500) that uses a flexible electrical circuit (900, Par. [0033]) to distribute power to multiple LEDs (122) where the summation of the light output from the LEDs creates the required light pattern (see Fig. 5) by bending the flexible circuit (900, Par. [0033]) such that the LEDs (122) are generally facing toward the center of curvature (see Fig. 5).
In regards to claim 16, Van Bommel discloses in Figures 5 and 9, various components of the light pattern are separated by some distance in the axial direction of the light pattern (such is considered natural of light patterns created by incoherent sources such as LEDs, noting the “components” have not been further defined).
In regards to claim 17, Van Bommel discloses in Figures 5 and 9, a light sensor or sensors are integrated into the assembly to measure some component of the LED intensity to determine if the intensity meets a predefined level (such is considered to be met by the human user of the lighting device, noting “some component” and “predefined level” have not been further defined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please review the newly cited references found on the attached PTO-892, namely Ho et al. (US 2017/0284644) and Lin et al. (US 2019/0101275), which teaches either alone or in combination lighting devices with inwardly facing LEDs similar to that which is currently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER K GARLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3599. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/ALEXANDER K GARLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights