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 .
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment, per MPEP 606.01. Any changes to claim scope at time of allowance may also result in an additional title amendment.
At this time, the following title is suggested: Lighting Device with Light Source and Lens Array.
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 uses phrases which could be implied. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the originally filed abstract as indicated below.
ABSTRACT.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “light mixing cover” (as defined in dependent claim 7), and the “lamp” and the “lamp box” (as defined in independent claim 20) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “131” has been used to designate a central individual lens (as seen in Figure 1), an individual end lens (as seen in Figure 6) an central lens portion of a integral lens array (as seen in Figure 11).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance; correction is required to prevent the instant application from going into abandonment.
Claim Rejections Based on Prior Art
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-3, 7, 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RIZKIN et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,814,470).
Regarding independent claim 1, RIZKIN et al. discloses a lighting device 10 (as seen in Figure 1) including at least two light sources 14 (as seen in Figure 1) and a plurality of lenses 16 (as seen in Figure 1), the plurality of lenses 16 being in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two light sources 14 (as seen in Figure 1); wherein each of the lenses 16 is configured to receive and converge emitted light from a corresponding light source 14 (as evidenced by Figure 1), at least a part of a periphery of each of the lenses 16 is arc-shaped (as seen in Figure 2A), the plurality of lenses 16 are symmetrically arranged (as seen in Figure 2A), and each of the lenses 16 is configured to make outgoing light therefrom define a zoned light spot (as evidenced by Figures 5A and 5B), in such a manner that an integral fan-shaped light spot is defined by all the zoned light spots (as seen in Figures 5A and 5 B).
Regarding dependent claim 2, RIZKIN et al. further discloses the at least two light sources 14 have a same emission angle (identical element 14, as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding dependent claim 3, RIZKIN et al. further discloses the number of the plurality of lenses 15 is odd (seven, as seen in Figure 2), the plurality of lenses 16 include a central lens (as seen in Figure 1) whose optical axis coincides with an optical axis of the fan-shaped light spot (as evidenced by Figure 1), and other lenses 16 except the central lens 16 are symmetrically arranged on both sides of the central lens 16 (as seen in Figure 2A).
Regarding dependent claim 7, RIZKIN et al. further discloses the lighting device 10 further includes a light mixing cover 18 (as seen in Figure 1) provided in a light emission direction of each of the plurality of light sources 14 (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding dependent claim 8, RIZKIN et al. further discloses the lighting device 10 further includes a light-blocking member 20 (as seen in Figure 1); the light-blocking member 20 is provided around each of the plurality of lenses 16 and provided between every two adjacent lenses 16 of the plurality of lenses 16 (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding independent claim 20, RIZKIN et al. discloses a lamp 10 (as seen in Figure 1) including a control box 24 (as seen in Figure 1) and a lighting device 10 electrically connected with each other (as seen in Figure 1), wherein the lighting device 10 includes at least two light sources 14 (as seen in Figure 1); and at least two lenses 16 (as seen in Figure 1), wherein the at least two lenses 16 are in one-to-one correspondence with the at least two light sources 14 (as seen in Figure 1), each of the at least two lenses 16 is configured to receive and converge emitted light from a corresponding light source 14 (as seen in Figure 1), the at least two lenses 16 are symmetrically arranged (as seen in Figure 2A), at least a part of a periphery of each of the at least two lenses is arc-shaped (circular, as seen in Figure 2A), and each of the lenses 16 is configured to make outgoing light therefrom define a zoned light spot (as evidenced Figures 5A and 5B) so that an integral fan-shaped light spot is defined by all the zoned light spots (as seen in Figures 5A and 5B).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RIZKIN et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,814,470).
RIZKIN et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, except the number of lenses 16 being is even, and the plurality of lenses 16 are symmetrically arranged on both sides of the optical axis O of the fan-shaped light spot.
However, it has been long held by the courts that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to form the lighting device 10 of RIZKIN et al. to have an even number of lenses 16. One would have been motivated to achieve the predictable result of providing a desired illumination output, as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Naylor (U.S. Pat. 1,820,086), Mouyard et al. (U.S. Pat. 4,254,453), Serizawa et al. (U.S. Pat. 4,733,335), Chen (U.S. Pat. 4,914,731), Murata (U.S. Pat. 4,935,665), Beyerlein et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,520,666), Angelini et al. (U.S. Pat. 7,938,559), Ahn (U.S. Pat. 9,062,862), Bailey et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2016/0102815), Gebhard et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,539,952), Lin et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,605,816), and Vredenborg et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2021/0018159) disclose lighting devices including a housing, a plurality of light sources provided in the housing, a plurality of lenses provided in the housing and corresponding to the number of light sources such that each lens receives and projects light from one of the light sources. Some further disclose angularly adjustable support arrangements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6 and 9-19 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 lighting devices including at least two light sources, and a corresponding plurality of lenses with a periphery having at least a portion which is arc-shaped. Each of the lenses is arranged symmetrically, and configured to receive and converge light from a corresponding light source and output such light to define a combined integral fan-shaped illumination output. At least two of the lighting devices form a light-emitting module disposed in a lamp body, further including a housing assembly including a light outlet, a lamp shade including the plurality of lenses arranged to cover the light outlet, a base, and a rotational connection mechanism connecting the base and the lamp body, such that the lamp body is able to rotated about a preset axis. A light-emitting side of the light-emitting module is configured to face the light outlet of the housing assembly to project light in a direction with intersects the preset axis. While the use and advantages of rotatable lamp supports, specifically for light source arrays with lenses, 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 structural elements and features of the applicants’ invention.
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