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 .
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language and format of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In certain patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or use thereof. If the new technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the abstract should mention by way of example the preferred modification or alternative.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
(2) if an article, its method of making;
(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
(5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it fails to concisely describe the subject matter of applicant’s invention. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the originally filed abstract as indicated below.
ABSTRACT. A lighting device [[may ]]includes a first lens, a housing defining a cavity, an emitter provided within the housing, a reflector in the cavity, and an internal optical structure. is configured to reflect the light generated by the emitter toward the first lens. The internal optical structure is located between the emitter and the first lens, and includes a second lens and a light shield between the second lens and the emitter. The light shield [[may ]]includes a first surface configured to reflect the light emitted by emitter, and one or more apertures aa first portion of the light emitted by the emitter to pass and reflect a second portion.
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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,435,859 (DONG et al.).
Regarding independent claim 1, dependent Patented claim 13 of DONG et al. teaches a lighting device (see preamble of Patented Claim 1) comprising: a first lens (see line 2 of Patented Claim 1); a housing defining a cavity (see line 3 of Patented Claim 1); a printed circuit board received within the cavity of the housing (see lines 4 and 5 of Patented Claim 1); an emitter mounted to the printed circuit board within the housing (see lines 6 and 7 of Patented Claim 1), the emitter configured to generate light (see line 8 of Patented Claim 1), wherein the emitter comprises an emitter module (see lines 1 and 2 of Patented Claim 13) comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes (see lines 2 and 3 of Patented Claim 13) and a plurality of detectors mounted to a substrate (see lines 3 and 3 of Patented Claim 13) and encapsulated by a dome (see line 4 of Patented Claim 13); a control circuit mounted to the printed circuit board (see line 8 of Patented Claim 1), the control circuit configured to control the emitter based on receipt of one or more messages (see lines 8-10 of Patented Claim 1); a reflector within the cavity (see line 11 of Patented Claim 1), the reflector configured to reflect the light generated by the emitter toward the first lens (see lines 11-13 of Patented Claim 1); and an internal optical structure between the emitter and the first lens (see lines 14 and 15 of Patented Claim 1), the internal optical structure comprising: a second lens (see lines 15 and 16 of Patented Claim 1); and a light shield between the second lens and the emitter (see line 17 of Patented Claim 1), the light shield comprising: a first surface configured to reflect light emitted by emitter (see lines 18-20 of Patented Claim 1); and one or more apertures therethrough (see line 22 of Patented Claim 1) that are configured to allow light emitted by the emitter to pass therethrough (see lines 22-24 of Patented Claim 1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of open-ended language in the instant claims (i.e. comprising) does not preclude the inclusion of the additional elements and/or structural features defined by the cited patented claim (e.g. the first surface redirecting light towards a base portion of the reflector, the apertures passing light to the second lens, or the base portion of the reflector reflecting light towards and through the second lens).
Regarding in dependent claim 2, dependent Patented claim 13 of DONG et al. further teaches the first surface is configured to redirect a first portion of the light emitted by the emitter toward a base portion of the reflector (see lines 19-21 of Patented Claim 1) and the one or more apertures are configured to allow a second portion of the light emitted by the emitter to pass therethrough to the second lens (see lines 22-25 of Patented Claim 1).
Regarding in dependent claim 3, dependent Patented claim 13 of DONG et al. further teaches the redirected first portion of light is reflected by the base portion of the reflector toward and through the second lens (see lines 26-28 of Patented Claim 1).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Garstang (U.S. Pat. 2,433,690), Williams (U.S. Pat. 2,699,515), Johnson (U.S. Pat. 4,418,378), Lammers et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,478,453), Kondo et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,558,032), Stopa et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,641,284), Harbers et al. (U.S. Pat. 7,494,246), Matsuba et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0052182), Sumitani (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2012/0218752), Somei et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2013/0058074), Sato et al. (U.S. Pat. 8,662,710), Cho et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,523,886), and Cornelissen et al. (U.S. Pat. 11,649,944) disclose lighting devices including a housing, at least one lens, at least one light emitter provided in the housing and configured to project light towards the lens, and a light shield having a surface for reflecting a portion of light from the emitter and a plurality of opening to allowing another portion of light from the emitter to pass therethrough.
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claim 1 has been rejected under the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting (se previous sections 5-9). The applicant is advised that, since no rejection has been presented against the independent claim over Prior Art, a timely filed terminal disclaimer, in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) (see previous section 6), would place all claims in condition for allowance.
Claims 4-21 are 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant teaches a lighting device including a first lens; a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) and a plurality of detectors encapsulated by a dome and mounted on a printed circuit board disposed in a housing; a control circuit mounted to the printed circuit board and configured to control the LEDs based on receipt of one or more messages; a reflector within the housing and configured to reflect light from the LEDs toward the first lens; and an internal optical structure provided between the LEDs and the first lens. The internal optical structure further includes a second lens; and a light shield between the second lens and the emitter, and configured to reflect light emitted by emitter from a first surface, and configured to allow light emitted by the emitter to pass through one or more apertures provided in the light shield.
While the use and advantages of illumination devices, specifically those including lenses and perforated light shields, are old and well known in the art (as evidenced by the documents already made of record), no prior art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all of the features of the applicants’ invention. Specifically, the closest Prior Art, Johnson (U.S. Pat. 4,418,378) discloses a lighting device 10 having a first lens 20; a plurality of light emitting elements 15 disposed in a housing 11/12; a reflector 25/26 configured to reflect the light generated by the emitter 15 toward the first lens 20; and an internal optical structure 18/30 including a second lens 18, and a light shield 30 having a first surface 37 configured to reflect light emitted by emitter 15 and at least one apertures 35 configured to allow light emitted by the emitter 15 to pass therethrough. Johnson fails to disclose a plurality of light emitting diodes and a plurality of detectors mounted on a substrate and encapsulated by a dome; and no motivation could be found for such combination beyond the teachings found in applicant's own disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAEL NEGRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk Lee, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ISMAEL NEGRON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights