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 .
Refusal – 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 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rare ground lamp model Seky-Han, 1963 (non-patent document reference U, hereinafter Seky-Han 1963).
Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 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, the invention is not patentable.
Seky-Han 1963 shows a lamp with design characteristics that are visually similar to those of the claimed design including an elongated central tube with contrast endcaps and contoured blades on either side running the length of the lamp where there are circular features/fasteners one at the top and two at the bottom of the blades. The differences include the top endcap detail which is considered de minimis in the context of the overall design.
Prior Art: Claim:
PNG
media_image1.png
668
170
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
714
142
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
675
80
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
663
73
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It is well settled that it is unobviousness in the overall appearance of the claimed design, when compared with the prior art, rather than minute details or small variations in design as appears to be the case here, that constitutes the test of design patentability. See In re Frick, 275 F2d 741, 125 USPQ 191 (CCPA 1960) and In re Lamb, 286 F2d 610, 128 USPQ 539 (CCPA 1961).
Conclusion/Contact Information
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this communication must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b).
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP § 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant's representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below.
Telephonic or in person interviews
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO ("registered practitioner") or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner).
The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become "of record," a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 "Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO," available at www.uspto.gov/ patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP § 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form" (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP § 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see "When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence" below.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Richard Kearney, can be reached on 571-272-8312. 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.
/A. J. L./
/Angela J Lee/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2933
Prosecution Insights