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 .
Specification
For proper form (37 CFR 1.153 or 37 CFR 1.1025), the claim must be amended to read: [“I claim: The ornamental design for a lamp shade cover and table lamp combination as shown and described.”]
The statement [The lamp shade cover situates about the table lamp and table lamp shade without a lamp shade spider fitter or other fitter structure connecting the lamp shade cover and table lamp, instead presenting an open view of the top surface of the table lamp as viewed from directly above the table lamp and lamp shade combination, which is part of the claimed design.] must be deleted in its entirety, because statements that describe or suggest other embodiments of the claimed design not illustrated in the drawing disclosure…are not permitted in the specification of an issued design patent. MPEP 1503.01.I.B.(2). Furthermore, because it is matter that is extraneous to the claimed invention and no description of the design in the specification beyond a brief description of the drawings is generally necessary. MPEP 1503.01.II.
For proper form (37 CFR 1.153; MPEP 1503.01.III), the broken line statement must be amended to precede the claim statement within the specification.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 112 (a) and (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b), as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and nonenabling because:
In Fig. 6, the examiner is unable to determine the exact configuration of the different areas, highlighted in gray and arrowed to below, on the bottom of the lighting fixture. As currently disclosed, the surfaces indicated below are not clearly shown as being on the same plane as each other or what might be recessed or raised above other elements. While these surfaces may be shown in other views, the showing is obstructed or taken at an angle that does not reconcile the exact depth and form. Therefore, it would be impossible for one skilled in the art to make and use the design without resort to conjecture.
PNG
media_image1.png
1088
903
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant may overcome this rejection by reducing the surfaces, arrowed to and highlighted in gray above, to broken lines, thus removing those surfaces from the claim.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over the Zafferano Poldina Pro Rechargeable and Wireless Table Lamp published on amazon.com (https://www.amazon.com/Zafferano-Poldina-Rechargeable-Wireless-2200-3000K/dp/B0844Y3X1S) on 01/23/2020 (hereinafter: “Zafferano”). in view of the Lampshades of Suzanne Duin of Maison Maison Design published on www.reviewjournal.com (https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/conventions/nothing-beats-market-in-person-interior-design-show-returns-to-las-vegas-2426376/) on 08/24/2021 (hereinafter: “Maison Maison”)
PNG
media_image2.png
1517
1004
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth 35 USC 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 present claimed invention to a designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.
“Zafferano” shows a table lamp having design characteristics which are visually similar to those of the claimed design, in that they both disclose a cordless table lamp with a tapered cylindrical top with a circular button and a square base.
However, “Zafferano” does not include an exterior detachable scalloped woven shade element. Both designs of table lamps are well known in the art of lighting.
“Maison Maison” teaches that a detachable scalloped woven shade was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claim.
It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify “Zafferano” with “Maison Maison” by modifying “Zafferano” with the a detachable scalloped woven shade of “Maison Maison” because such modifications are no more than simple substitutions of known design elements for others. In the field of lighting, particular with respect to table lamps, shades and covers represent standard commonplace ornamental features which have been interchangeable as additions to the illuminated standing bases of lamps over the history of lighting as a field of design. The feature of a lampshade being added to a table lamp is not a novel design convention. Moreover, such substitution of one known design element for another known design element in the same field would have been within the skill of an ordinarily skilled designer.
Conclusion
The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b) and 35 USC 103.
The references are cited as pertinent prior art. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html and pressing the “Patent Number Search” button.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLE SOLEIL FARINEAU whose telephone number is (703)756-1986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm EST.
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, CALVIN E VANSANT can be reached on (571)272-5714. 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.
/I.S.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2937
/CALVIN E VANSANT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2937