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 § 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, 8-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Inoue [US 9841165].
As to claim 1, Inoue discloses a light-emitting lamp structure [10, figure 1] with diffuse reflection, comprising: a reflector cup [12] having a run-through mounting hole [in center, along C, figure 1, holding 32]; a heat dissipation assembly [32], at least a part of the heat dissipation assembly being provided inside the reflector cup through the mounting hole [see figure 1]; and a light source assembly [34] provided inside the reflector cup along a side wall of the heat dissipation assembly [see figure 1].
As to claim 8, Inoue discloses the light-emitting lamp structure with diffuse reflection according to claim 1, wherein an inner side of the reflector cup is a diffuse reflection surface [20, figure 1].
As to claim 9, Inoue discloses the light-emitting lamp structure with diffuse reflection according to claim 1, further comprising a transparent protective shade [30]; wherein the transparent protective shade is provided around the light sources of the light source assembly [see figure 1].
As to claim 10, Inoue discloses the light-emitting lamp structure with diffuse reflection according to claim 9, wherein one side of the transparent protective shade away from the light source assembly is provided with a refractive structure [outer surface of 36, figure 1].
As to claim 11, Inoue discloses the light-emitting lamp structure with diffuse reflection according to claim 1, further comprising a housing [protruding part of 12 which extend to the right of interior]; wherein the housing is provided with a mounting slot [gap between 12 and 22, figure 1]; and both the reflector cup and the light source assembly are provided inside the mounting slot [see figure 1].
As to claim 12, Inoue discloses the light-emitting lamp structure with diffuse reflection according to claim 11, wherein a plane of a slot opening of the mounting slot is not lower than a plane of a cup opening of the reflector cup [see figure 1, a place of the reflector cup may be made on left side of figure 1 and a plane of the slot opening on the right side of figure 1, which is below the plane of a cup opening of the reflector cup].
As to claim 15, Inoue discloses the light-emitting lamp structure with diffuse reflection according to claim 11, wherein an outer side of the housing is provided with a mounting assembly [protruding ridge in center of right side of figure 1].
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Clark [US 2016/0323981].
As to claim 13, Inoue fails to explicitly disclose wherein the housing is provided with a dip switch. Clark teaches the use of dip switches was well known [see paragraph 17]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement a dip switch in the housing, in order to selectively provide power to the lighting device [see Inoue, column 11, lines 18-24].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Borner [US 6234648].
As to claim 14, Inoue fails to explicitly disclose wherein the reflector cup is in threaded connection with the housing. Borner teaches the use of threaded engagement members was well known [see 4, figure 1]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to implement a threaded connection between the reflector cup and housing, as such a connection allows for easy removal and replacement of the reflector cup with other claimed elements [see Inoue, column 11, lines 18-24].
Claim 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Roberts [US 6441943].
As to claim 17, Inoue fails to explicitly disclose wherein the reflector cup is formed through injection molding. Roberts teaches the use of injection molding for forming was well known [see column 23, line 3-32]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use injection molding, as such a manufacturing process is well known to produce reliable and predictable results [see Inoue, column 11, lines 18-24].
As to claim 18, Inoue fails to explicitly disclose wherein an inner surface of the reflector cup is formed with a coarse matte texture through abrasive blasting. Roberts teaches abrasive blasting was well known for optical surfaces [see column 14, line 41]. It would have been obvious to use the sandblasting techniques of Roberts as such techniques are well known and produce predictable results [see Inoue, column 11, lines 18-24].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of English [US 6682211].
As to claim 19, Inoue fails to explicitly disclose wherein the reflector cup is formed through metal spinning. English teaches metal spinning was well known method of manufacture [see column 3, line 23, discussing lathes]. It would have been obvious to use the metal spinning techniques of English as such techniques are well known and produce predictable results [see Inoue, column 11, lines 18-24].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of English and Roberts.
As to claim 20, Inoue fails to explicitly disclose wherein the inner surface of the reflector cup is formed through sandblasting. Roberts teaches abrasive sandblasting was well known for optical surfaces [see column 14, line 41]. It would have been obvious to use the sandblasting techniques of Roberts as such techniques are well known and produce predictable results [see Inoue, column 11, lines 18-24].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 16 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:
As to claim 2 and its dependent claims, the claims recite the details of the light-emitting lamp structure with diffuse reflection according to claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation assembly comprises a horizontal mounting portion and a protruding mounting portion; the light-emitting lamp structure further comprises a driver provided on the horizontal mounting portion and provided with a through hole; and the protruding mounting portion passes through the through hole and the mounting hole, so that at least a part of the protruding mounting portion is provided inside the reflector cup. No other cited art teaches or discloses the specific details as claimed, wherein a driver is provided on the horizontal mounting portion of the heat dissipation assembly and provided with a through hole, wherein the protruding mounting portion protrudes through the through hole and the mounting hole, in combination with other claimed elements and limitations.
As to claim 16, the claims recite the details wherein the mounting assembly comprises a mounting fastener and a torsion spring; the mounting fastener is provided on an outer side wall of the housing; and a main body of the torsion spring is provided inside the mounting fastener, and an elastic arm of the torsion spring is provided outside the mounting fastener. No cited art teaches such fasteners in combination with other claimed elements and limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wilk (see PTO-892), Van Winkle, Klipstein, Van De Ven (x2), Smith, Wedell, and Meadows all teach alternative embodiments of light sources similar to that claimed by applicant, specifically wherein a reflector cup has a through hole on which is mounted a light source. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON GYLLSTROM whose telephone number is (571)270-1498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, 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.
/BRYON T GYLLSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875