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 preliminary amendment filed on 07 November 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-15 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-15 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation recites: “...said respective elastic element is housed at least partially, preferably completely...,” which renders the claim indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “at least partially”, and the claim also recites “preferably completely” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as --...at least partially...--. Clarification from the Applicant is requested and appropriate correction is required.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2011/0317411 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an operating lamp (Figs. 1-10), comprising: a lamp body (2, 3, 4, 411, 44, 45, 31, 35, 442, 443, 142, and/or 11); at least one luminous source (124) mounted on the lamp body (as shown in Fig. 4); at least one reflector (13, or the inner concave surface of 13) configured to reflect a light beamflange, or otherwise peripheral region of 13 having elements 131 thereon) along the respective adjustment axis (as shown in Figs. 3-4), wherein each mounting portion (elements 131, collectively for a respective 13, and/or the rim, flange, or otherwise peripheral region of 13 having elements 131 thereon) is pressed against the end stop shoulder (144) of said respective mounting member (141, 142, 143, and/or 144) by a respective elastic element (143); wherein said at least one reflector (13, or the inner concave surface of 13) is mounted on said at least one support body (as shown in Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses (Figs. 1-10) each mounting member (141, 142, 143, and/or 144) of the plurality of mounting members is mounted on said lamp body (2, 3, 4, 411, 44, 45, 31, 35, 442, 443, 142, and/or 11) by a threaded coupling (each said mounting member is coupled to a portion of said lamp body, e.g. 11, via a threaded coupling), the independently adjustable position of each end stop shoulder (144) being adjustable by acting on said threaded coupling (144 is coupled via threaded coupling to 141, and is adjustable by acting on said threaded coupling).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses (Figs. 1-10) said lamp body (2, 3, 4, 411, 44, 45, 31, 35, 442, 443, 142, and/or 11) comprises a plurality of mounting seats (142), and wherein each mounting member (141, 143, and/or 144) of the plurality of mounting members (each 141, 143, and/or 144, respectively) comprises a stem (the stem of 141) engaged in a respective mounting seat (142) of said plurality of mounting seats (as shown in Figs. 3-4), said threaded coupling being realized between said stem and said mounting seat (as shown in Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses (Figs. 1-10) a plurality of elastic elements (143), wherein to each mounting member (141, 143, and/or 144) of said plurality of mounting members is associated a respective elastic element (143) of said plurality of elastic elements (as shown in Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses (Figs. 1-10) said respective elastic element (143) is arranged around the stem (said stem of 141) of the respective mounting member (as shown in Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses (Figs. 1-10) each mounting seat (142) of said plurality of mounting seats (mounting seats 142, collectively) comprises a first abutment surface (a first abutment surface of 142 abutting 143, as shown in Figs. 3-4), and wherein the elastic element (143) associated with the respective mounting member comprises a first end (a first end in abutment with said first abutment surface of 142, as shown in Figs. 3-4) arranged in abutment against said first abutment surface (as shown in Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses (Figs. 1-10) each mounting portion (elements 131, collectively for a respective 13, and/or the rim, flange, or otherwise peripheral region of 13 having elements 131 thereon) of said plurality of mounting portions comprises a second abutment surface (a second abutment surface in abutment with 143, as shown in Figs. 3-4), and wherein the elastic member (143) associated with the respective mounting member comprises a second end (a second end of 143 in abutment with said second abutment surface of 131) arranged in abutment against said second abutment surface (as shown in Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses (Figs. 1-10) each mounting member (141, 142, 143, and/or 144) of said plurality of mounting members comprises a head (an end of 141 opposite to 142, upon which 144 is disposed) on which the respective end stop shoulder (144) is defined (the claim does not specify what define is to impart the shoulder, thus, in the position at which 144 is on said end of 141 opposite 142, 144 is defined thereon).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses (Figs. 1-10) said head comprises a maneuvering portion (the threaded outer body of said head forms a maneuvering portion by which 144 may be maneuvered) and wherein said mounting portion (131, and/or the apertures therein) coupled to the respective mounting member comprises a maneuvering seat (the aperture within 131 forms a seat for 141) within which said head (141) is housed (as the claim does not define any particulars of the nature of engagement or structure of the head and maneuvering seat, said maneuvering seat formed by said aperture within 131 receives 141 therein, and thus constitutes a maneuvering seat), said maneuvering seat allowing access to said maneuvering portion to an operator to adjust the independently adjustable position of said end stop shoulder (the maneuvering seat does not impair or limit access to said maneuvering portion and allows the operator to adjust the independently adjustable position of said end stop shoulder 144 via rotation thereof. The operator can also access said maneuvering portion via rotation of 144).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses (Figs. 1-10) each elastic element (143) of said plurality of elastic elements comprises a spring (as shown in Figs. 1-10).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses (Figs. 1-10) said at least one support body (elements 131, collectively for a respective 13, and/or the rim, flange, or otherwise peripheral region of 13 having elements 131 thereon) comprises a concave support seat (the body or volume forming 13, upon which an inner surface thereof forms a reflector) wherein said reflector is placed (as shown in Figs. 1-10), the plurality of mounting portions (131, and/or the apertures therein) being distributed around said support seat (as shown in Figs. 1-10).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses (Figs. 1-10) a plurality of luminous sources (124) mounted on the lamp body (as shown in Figs. 1-10); a plurality of reflectors (elements 13, or the inner concave surface of elements 13, as shown in Figs. 1-10), each reflector of the plurality of reflectors being configured to reflect a light beam (F) emitted by a respective luminous source (124) of said plurality of luminous sources (elements 124) and to focus said light beam along a respective luminous axis (as shown in Figs. 1-10); for each reflector of said plurality of reflectors, respective mounting members (141, 142, 143, and/or 144) from the plurality of mounting members are spaced apart from each other and mounted on said lamp body (as shown in Figs. 1-10), each of said respective mounting members comprising a respective end stop shoulder (144), having an independently adjustable position relative to the lamp body along the adjustment axis of each of the respective mounting members (each 144 is adjustable via threading along a respective adjustment axis of 141); for each reflector of said plurality of reflectors, a respective support body (elements 131, collectively for a respective 13, and/or the rim, flange, or otherwise peripheral region of 13 having elements 131 thereon) of the at least one support body is provided comprising respective mounting portions (131, and/or the apertures therein) from the a plurality of mounting portions (as shown in Figs. 1-10), each of the respective mounting portions being slidably coupled to a respective mounting member of said plurality of mounting members along the adjustment axis of said respective mounting member (as shown in Figs. 1-10 and as noted above), the end stop shoulder (144) of said respective mounting member
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses (Figs. 1-10) the reflectors of said plurality of reflectors.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Chen (US 7,562,999 B2).
Regarding claim 8, as is best understood, Lee does not explicitly teach that each mounting portion of said plurality of mounting portions comprises a housing seat within which said respective elastic element is housed at least partially.
Chen teaches or suggests (Fig. 13) each mounting portion of said plurality of mounting portions comprises a housing seat (the housing cylinder around 134, as shown in Fig. 13, note the neighboring cylinder with another 132 shown in the background in Fig. 13) within which said respective elastic element (134) is housed at least partially (as shown in Fig. 13, it is also noted that the elastic element 134 appears to be housed completely within the cylinder of the respective mounting portion shown in Fig. 13).
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 Lee and incorporated the teachings of each mounting portion of said plurality of mounting portions comprises a housing seat within which said respective elastic element is housed at least partially, such as taught or suggested by Chen, 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 improving the performance and/or longevity of the device (e.g., by providing a feature to prevent dust or environmental contaminants from impairing, or otherwise degrading, operation or material of the spring).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Smith et al. (US 5,971,569 A, herein referred to as: Smith).
Regarding claim 13, Lee does not explicitly teach that said reflector comprises a plurality of reflecting surfaces arranged along a parabolic surface, and wherein said support seat has a concave shape which follows said parabolic surface.
Smith teaches or suggests (Fig. 1, or only Figure) said reflector (the inner concave parabolic surface of 20) comprises a plurality of reflecting surfaces (22, 24, 26) arranged along a parabolic surface (as shown in Fig. 1, “...the reflector segments 22, 24, 26 are formed with a parabolic cross section...”), and wherein said support seat (the volume of 20) has a concave shape which follows said parabolic surface (as shown in Fig. 1).
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 Lee and incorporated the teachings of said reflector comprises a plurality of reflecting surfaces arranged along a parabolic surface, and wherein said support seat has a concave shape which follows said parabolic surface, such as taught or suggested by Smith, 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 improving the performance the device (e.g., by providing a well-known geometrical surface for focusing light from the respective light source).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please see US 2007/0041167 A1 to Nachi, pertinent to various features as recited in claims 1-15.
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
