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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 13 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 12 being independent.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian et al. (US 10,562,440 B1, herein referred to as: Julian), in view of Ferenc (US 4,620,268 A).
Regarding claim 1, Julian teaches or suggests a lighting system (Figs. 1-21), comprising: a lighting device (Figs. 19-21), the lighting device including: a housing (48, 60); a lens (62) mounted to the housing (as shown in Fig. 19); a first reflector (a first reflector 26) positioned in the housing (as shown in Figs. 19-21); and a light emitter (32, or the plurality of emitters 32, collectively form a light emitter) positioned in the housing (as shown in Figs. 19-21), the lighting device being configured such that a peak magnitude of a light beam distribution (emitted from one or a combination thereof of emitters 32) emitted by the light emitter (32, or the plurality of emitters 32, collectively form a light emitter) through the lens (62) is along a first direction (as shown in Figs. 9 and 19-21); and a second reflector (a second reflector 26) configured to be mounted to the lighting device (as shown in Figs. 19-21), the second reflector being configured such that when the second reflector is mounted to the lighting device, the peak magnitude of the light beam distribution emitted by the light emitter (32, or the plurality of emitters 32, collectively form a light emitter) through the lens (62) is along a second direction (as shown in Fig. 9), the second direction and the first direction being at least 5 degrees offset from each other (as shown in Fig. 9, several different combinations of first and second reflectors are depicted which satisfy the second direction and the first direction being at least 5 degrees offset from each other, note each reflector in Fig. 9 is tilted by 5 degrees such that the projected ranges from end to end is 90 degrees).
Julian does not explicitly teach that at least one reflective surface of the second reflector has a different size or a different shape from each reflective surface of the first reflector.
Ferenc teaches or suggests (Fig. 2) at least one reflective surface of the second reflector (e.g., of 32) has a different size or a different shape from each reflective surface of the first reflector (e.g., of 30, as shown in Fig. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Julian and incorporated the teachings of at least one reflective surface of the second reflector has a different size or a different shape from each reflective surface of the first reflector, such as taught or suggested by Ferenc, in order to improve the utility and/or marketability of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment by which the lighting device can provide alternate patterns or lighting functions to suite a specified application).
Regarding claim 2, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) the second reflector is configured to be mounted to the lighting device such that the second reflector at least partially covers the first reflector (the claim does not specify how the reflectors are mounted relative to one another, nor does it specific how the reflector is to be “covered” Thus, the Examiner notes that each reflector covers one another both partially or fully, from either side along the length of the light emitter, or along a direction slightly angled to the length direction of the light emitter).
Regarding claim 3, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) the second reflector is configured to be mounted to the lighting device such that the second reflector fully covers the first reflector(the claim does not specify how the reflectors are mounted relative to one another, nor does it specific how the reflector is to be “covered” Thus, the Examiner notes that each reflector covers one another both partially or fully, from either side along the length of the light emitter, or along a direction slightly angled to the length direction of the light emitter).
Regarding claim 4, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) the light emitter includes a light emitting diode (LED) (e.g., “...printed circuit board (PCB) 30 may support a plurality of light emitting diodes (LED) 32...”).
Regarding claim 5, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) the second direction and the first direction are between 5 degrees and 20 degrees offset from each other (as shown in Fig. 9, several different combinations of first and second reflectors are depicted which satisfy the second direction and the first direction are between 5 degrees and 20 degrees offset from each other, note each reflector in Fig. 9 is tilted by 5 degrees such that the projected ranges from end to end is 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 6, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) the second direction and the first direction are between 13 degrees and 17 degrees offset from each other (as shown in Fig. 9, several different combinations of first and second reflectors are depicted which satisfy the second direction and the first direction are between 13 degrees and 17 degrees offset from each other, note each reflector in Fig. 9 is tilted by 5 degrees such that the projected ranges from end to end is 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 7, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) the first reflector includes a first configuration of first curved surfaces (the claim does not specify if the curved surfaces of the first reflector are limited to only those that reflect light, or if they are limited to any curved surface of the first reflector. In the instant case, 26 comprises, at least, six curved surfaces which form the boundaries of each respective reflector 26, e.g., see Fig. 1. Additionally, or alternatively, each reflector is depicted with sections or segments which form individual curved surfaces, as shown in Fig. 1); wherein the second reflector includes a second configuration of second curved surfaces (as noted above, said feature applies to all reflectors 26, thus, the second reflector comprises a second configuration of second curved surfaces as well); and wherein the first configuration of first curved surfaces is different from the second configuration of second curved surfaces (the claim does not specify what the configuration is, thus, the mere orientation thereof forms a configuration by which all reflectors 26 and their curved surfaces differ).
Regarding claim 8, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) first elongate dimensions of the first curved surfaces (e.g., first elongate dimensions of the first curved surfaces formed by elongate dimensions along the width of the reflectors 26) are approximately perpendicular to second elongate dimensions of the second curved surfaces (e.g., second elongate dimensions of the second curved surfaces formed by elongate dimensions along the width of the reflectors 26) when the second reflector is mounted to the lighting device (as shown in Figs. 1, 9, and 19-21; e.g., the reflectors on each end are tilted by 45 degrees relative to the middle and in opposite directions, and thus, form an approximately perpendicular angle relative to one another along said first and second elongate dimensions. Additionally, or alternatively, Figs. 11-12 demonstrate several first and second reflectors which satisfy the claimed limitation, as well as those recited in claims 1 and 7 above, for both the reflector arrangements 26 and first and second directions along which they emit).
Regarding claim 9, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) the first curved surfaces are concave (the surface above 32, as well as the inner edges of the four peripheral surfaces are concave. Additionally, or alternatively, each reflector is depicted with sections or segments which form individual curved surfaces, e.g. above each LED 32, which constitute first concave surfaces) and the second curved surfaces are not concave (the outer surface of each reflector 26 is convex, and the outer edge and edge surface of each of the four peripheral edges of each reflector excluding said inner edges are not concave. Additionally, or alternatively, each reflector is depicted with sections or segments which form individual curved surfaces, e.g. on a surface opposite the surface above each LED corresponding to the front surface portions, which constitute second surfaces that are not concave).
Regarding claim 11, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) the lighting device further comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) (30) positioned within the housing (as shown in Figs. 19-21); and wherein the light emitter (32) is mounted to the PCB (as shown in Figs. 1, 9, and 19-21).
Regarding claim 12, Julian teaches or suggests a lightbar for a vehicle (Figs. 1-21), comprising: a housing (48, 60); a lens (62) mounted to the housing (as shown in Fig. 19); a first light assembly (a first 26, 32, or a first plurality of 26, 32) positioned in the housing (as shown in Fig. 19), the first light assembly including a first light emitter (32) and a first reflector (26); a second light assembly (a second 26, 32, or a second plurality of 26, 32) positioned in the housing (as shown in Fig. 19), the second light assembly including a second light emitter (32) and a second reflector (26), wherein the first light emitter and the second light emitter are configured to generate light beams having light beam distributions in which directions of peak magnitudes of the light beam distributions are parallel to each other (as shown in Figs. 1-21, i.e., each of the LEDs 32 are configured to generate light beams having light beam distributions in which directions of peak magnitudes of the light beam distributions are parallel to each other, in regions along the optical axis of the LEDs facing or intersecting the respective reflectors); and wherein the first reflector and the second reflector are configured to reflect the light beams such that reflected directions of the peak magnitudes of the light beam distributions are offset from each other by at least 5 degrees (as shown in Fig. 9, several different combinations of first and second reflectors are depicted which satisfy the second direction and the first direction being at least 5 degrees offset from each other, note each reflector in Fig. 9 is tilted by 5 degrees such that the projected ranges from end to end is 90 degrees).
Julian does not explicitly teach that at least one reflective surface of the second reflector has a different size or a different shape from each reflective surface of the first reflector.
Ferenc teaches or suggests (Fig. 2) at least one reflective surface of the second reflector (e.g., of 32) has a different size or a different shape from each reflective surface of the first reflector (e.g., of 30, as shown in Fig. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Julian and incorporated the teachings of at least one reflective surface of the second reflector has a different size or a different shape from each reflective surface of the first reflector, such as taught or suggested by Ferenc, in order to improve the utility and/or marketability of the device (e.g., by providing an embodiment by which the lighting device can provide alternate patterns or lighting functions to suite a specified application).
Regarding claim 13, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) the first reflector and the second reflector are configured to reflect the light beams such that reflected directions of the peak magnitudes of the light beam distributions are offset from each other by between 5 degrees and 20 degrees (as shown in Fig. 9, several different combinations of first and second reflectors are depicted which satisfy the second direction and the first direction are between 5 degrees and 20 degrees offset from each other, note each reflector in Fig. 9 is tilted by 5 degrees such that the projected ranges from end to end is 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 14, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) the first reflector and the second reflector are configured to reflect the light beams such that reflected directions of the peak magnitudes of the light beam distributions are offset from each other by between 13 degrees and 17 degrees (as shown in Fig. 9, several different combinations of first and second reflectors are depicted which satisfy the second direction and the first direction are between 13 degrees and 17 degrees offset from each other, note each reflector in Fig. 9 is tilted by 5 degrees such that the projected ranges from end to end is 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 15, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) the first reflector includes a first configuration of first curved surfaces (the claim does not specify if the curved surfaces of the first reflector are limited to only those that reflect light, or if they are limited to any curved surface of the first reflector. In the instant case, 26 comprises, at least, six curved surfaces which form the boundaries of each respective reflector 26, e.g., see Fig. 1. Additionally, or alternatively, each reflector is depicted with sections or segments which form individual curved surfaces, as shown in Fig. 1); wherein the second reflector includes a second configuration of second curved surfaces (as noted above, said feature applies to all reflectors 26, thus, the second reflector comprises a second configuration of second curved surfaces as well); and wherein the first configuration of first curved surfaces is different from the second configuration of second curved surfaces (the claim does not specify what the configuration is, thus, the mere orientation thereof forms a configuration by which all reflectors 26 and their curved surfaces differ).
Regarding claim 16, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) first elongate dimensions of the first curved surfaces (e.g., first elongate dimensions of the first curved surfaces formed by elongate dimensions along the width of the reflectors 26) are approximately perpendicular to second elongate dimensions of the second curved surfaces (e.g., second elongate dimensions of the second curved surfaces formed by elongate dimensions along the width of the reflectors 26) when the second reflector is mounted to the lighting device (as shown in Figs. 1, 9, and 19-21; e.g., the reflectors on each end are tilted by 45 degrees relative to the middle and in opposite directions, and thus, form an approximately perpendicular angle relative to one another along said first and second elongate dimensions. Additionally, or alternatively, Figs. 11-12 demonstrate several first and second reflectors which satisfy the claimed limitation, as well as those recited in claims 1 and 7 above, for both the reflector arrangements 26 and first and second directions along which they emit).
Regarding claim 17, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) the second curved surfaces in cross-section define a portion of a parabola (e.g., “...The reflector 26 may be shaped in the form of a parabolic arc with the LED 32 located at or near a focal point of that parabolic arc...”).
Regarding claim 18, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) further comprising a printed circuit board (PCB) (30) positioned within the housing (as shown in Fig. 19), wherein the first light emitter and the second light emitter are mounted to the PCB (as shown in Figs. 1, 9 and 19-21).
Regarding claim 19, Julian teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-21) a vehicle (50), comprising: a vehicle body (as shown in Fig. 11).
Julian does not explicitly teach the lightbar of claim 12 mounted to the vehicle body.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Julian and incorporated the teachings of the lightbar of claim 12 mounted to the vehicle body, such as alternatively taught or suggested by Julian by the teachings of Figs. 11 and 19-21, since it has been held by the courts that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to increase or otherwise improve the utility of the device (i.e. by providing a feature by which the device of Figs. 19-21 can be utilized on a vehicle roof for signaling applications).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian, in view of Ferenc, and in further view of Frank et al. (US 2008/0258900 A1, herein referred to as: Frank).
Regarding claim 10, Julian does not explicitly teach that the second reflector includes mounting structures; wherein the housing defines receivers; and wherein the mounting structures are configured to lockingly mate with the receivers.
Frank teaches or suggests (Figs. 8-17) a reflector (128) includes mounting structures (132, 208); wherein the housing (108) defines receivers (124); and wherein the mounting structures are configured to lockingly mate with the receivers (via rotation of 132, additionally, the claim does not define the particulars of the connection structure which performs the action of lockingly mating the recited elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Julian and incorporated the teachings of the second reflector includes mounting structures; wherein the housing defines receivers; and wherein the mounting structures are configured to lockingly mate with the receivers, such as taught or suggested by Frank, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of providing a mounting structure that enables the reflector to be easily removed or replaced.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian, in view of Ferenc, and in further view of Jaeger (US 10,035,448 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Julian does not explicitly teach that the vehicle body includes a tiltable bed; and wherein the lightbar is mounted to the tiltable bed.
Jaeger teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-7) the vehicle body includes a tiltable bed (as shown in Figs. 1-7); and wherein the lightbar is mounted to the tiltable bed (as shown in Figs. 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Julian and incorporated the teachings of the vehicle body includes a tiltable bed; and wherein the lightbar is mounted to the tiltable bed, such as taught or suggested by Jaeger, in order to increase or otherwise improve the utility of the device (i.e. by providing a feature by which the device can be utilized on a tiltable vehicle bed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please see US-20070242472-A1 to Gergets and US-20040109313-A1 to Smith, pertinent to the feature of differing reflector shapes or sizes as recited in the amended limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Jong-Suk (James) 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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights