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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12 January 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson (US 2018/0238523 A1) in view of Ng et al. (US 2011/0051437 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Hudson teaches a light device (100), comprising, a housing (102); a rotation hinge (108) connected between the housing (see Fig. 2) and a first portion (107) of a light arm (101), the rotation hinge rotating in a first plane (see Figs. 3, 8); and an extension hinge (110) which connects a first portion of the light arm (107) to a second portion of the light arm (109) on a side of the first portion of the light arm which is opposite to a side of the first portion of the light arm that is connected to the housing and the light arm (see Figs. 3, 8), wherein the extension hinge permits only the second portion of the light arm (see Figs. 3, 8) and the extension hinge permits only the second portion of the light arm to move between a first position (see Fig. 3) and a second position (see Fig. 8) that is in a straight line with the first portion of the light arm (see Fig. 8).
Hudson does not teach that the extension hinge rotates in a second plane and prevents the first portion of the light arm from rotating in the second plane different from the first plane, the first position is aside the first portion of the light arm, instead teaching a facing first position.
However, Ng teaches a light device (10) comprising an extension hinge (26) that rotates in a second plane (rotation plane of 26; see Fig. 1) and prevents the first portion (24) of the light arm (24+28) from rotating in the second plane (note that rotation plane of hinge 22, which rotates the first portion, is different from that of hinge 26) different from the first plane (see Fig. 1), the first position is aside the first portion of the light arm (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light device of Hudson by arranging the extension hinge to rotate in a different plane than the rotation hinge as taught by Ng in order to increase the range of motion of the light arm in an aesthetically pleasing way (Ng paragraph 25).
With respect to claim 2: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “The light device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hudson further teaches “further comprising: a plurality of light elements (103) disposed on the first portion of the light arm (see Fig. 4) and the second portion of the light arm (see Fig. 4)”.
Hudson does not teach “such that the light elements emit light in the same direction whether the second portion of the light arm is aside the first portion of the light arm or the second portion of the light arm is aligned with the first portion of the light arm”.
However, Ng teaches “such that the light elements emit (30) light in the same direction whether the second portion of the light arm is aside the first portion of the light arm or the second portion of the light arm is aligned with the first portion of the light arm (see Fig. 1; rotation about hinge 26 does not change the direction light emitting elements are facing)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light device of Hudson by arranging the first and second portions of the light arm as taught by Ng in order to direct the illumination from the light arm to a desired illumination area and in a desired illumination pattern (Ng paragraph 5).
With respect to claim 3: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “The light device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hudson further teaches “further comprising: a second rotation hinge connected between the housing and a second light arm (see Fig. 2; there are eight rotation hinges (108) each connected between the housing (102) and an associated light arm (101)); and a second extension hinge connected between a first portion of the second light arm and a second portion of the second light arm (see Fig. 2; each of the light arms has an extension hinge (110) connecting first and second portions (107, 109)).
With respect to claim 4: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “The light device of claim 3 (see above)”.
Hudson further teaches “further comprising: a third rotation hinge connected between the housing and a third light arm (see Fig. 2; there are eight rotation hinges (108) each connected between the housing (102) and an associated light arm (101)); and a third extension hinge connected between a first portion of the third light arm and a second portion of the third light arm (see Fig. 2; each of the light arms has an extension hinge (110) connecting first and second portions (107, 109))”.
With respect to claim 5: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “The light device of claim 4 (see above)”.
Hudson further teaches “further comprising: a plurality of light elements disposed on the first portion of the second light arm (paragraphs 65-66); a plurality of light elements disposed on the second portion of the second light arm (paragraphs 65-66); a plurality of light elements disposed on the first portion of the third light arm (paragraphs 65-66); and a plurality of light elements disposed on a second portion of the third light arm (paragraphs 65-66)”.
With respect to claim 6: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “The light device of claim 5 (see above)”.
Hudson further teaches “further comprising: a plurality of rotation hinges connected between the housing and each one of a plurality of light arms (see Fig. 2); and a plurality of extension hinges connected between a first portion of each one of the plurality of light arms and a second portion of each one of the plurality of light arms (see Fig. 2)”.
With respect to claim 7: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “The light device of claim 6 (see above)”.
Hudson further teaches “wherein the plurality of rotation hinges dispose the plurality of light arms at an angle β between each one of the plurality of light arms (see Fig. 2)”.
With respect to claim 8: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “The light device of claim 6 (see above)”.
Hudson further teaches “further comprising: a plurality of light elements disposed on a first portion of each one of the plurality of light arms, and a plurality of light elements disposed on a second portion of each one of the plurality of light arms (paragraphs 65-66)”.
With respect to claim 9: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “The light device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hudson further teaches “wherein the first light arm rotates by the rotation hinge from being parallel with the housing (see Fig. 3) to being disposed at an angle α relative to the housing (see Fig. 1)”.
With respect to claim 13: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “The light device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hudson further teaches “further comprising connection circuitry (paragraph 65)”.
Claims 10-12, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson in view of Ng as applied to claims 1, 13 above, and further in view of Inskeep (US 2016/0356439 A1).
With respect to claim 10: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “the light device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hudson does not specifically teach “further comprising a light control switch”.
However, Inskeep teaches a light device “further comprising a light control switch (16)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light device of Hudson with the light control switch taught by Inskeep in order to turn the lights on/off and otherwise control them (Inskeep paragraph 23).
With respect to claim 11: Hudson in view of Ng and Inskeep teaches “the light device of claim 10 (see above)”.
Hudson does not specifically teach “wherein the light control switch is a power switch”.
Inskeep teaches “wherein the light control switch is a power switch (paragraph 23)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light device of Hudson with the power switch taught by Inskeep in order to turn the lights on/off (Inskeep paragraph 23).
With respect to claim 12: Hudson in view of Ng and Inskeep teaches “the light device of claim 10 (see above)”.
Hudson does not teach “wherein the light control switch is a dimmer switch”.
Inskeep teaches “wherein the light control switch is a dimmer switch (paragraph 24)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light device of Hudson with the dimmer switch taught by Inskeep in order to switch the lights between a high output and low output mode (Inskeep paragraph 24).
With respect to claim 14: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “the light device of claim 13 (see above)”.
Hudson does not specifically teach “wherein the connection circuitry provides a port for accepting a wire”.
However, Inskeep teaches “wherein the connection circuitry (see Fig. 2) provides a port (15) for accepting a wire (paragraph 27)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light device of Hudson with the USB port taught by Inskeep in order to receive or send power from an external source to/from the light device (Inskeep paragraph 27).
With respect to claim 16: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “the light device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hudson does not teach “further comprising a power switch and a dimmer switch”.
Inskeep teaches “further comprising a power switch (paragraph 23) and a dimmer switch (paragraph 24)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light device of Hudson with the power switch taught by Inskeep in order to turn the lights on/off (Inskeep paragraph 23) and the dimmer switch taught by Inskeep in order to switch the lights between a high output and low output mode (Inskeep paragraph 24).
With respect to claim 17: Hudson in view of Ng and Inskeep teaches “the light device of claim 16 (see above)”.
Hudson does not teach “wherein the power switch and the dimmer switch are disposed in the housing of the light device”.
Inskeep teaches “wherein the power switch and the dimmer switch are disposed in the housing of the light device (see Fig. 2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light device of Hudson with the power switch taught by Inskeep in order to turn the lights on/off (Inskeep paragraph 23) and the dimmer switch taught by Inskeep in order to switch the lights between a high output and low output mode (Inskeep paragraph 24).
With respect to claim 18: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “the light device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hudson teaches “wherein the housing further includes a mount”.
Inskeep teaches “wherein the housing further includes a mount (17)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light device of Hudson with the mount of Inskeep in order to position the light for hands-free operation (Inskeep paragraph 31).
With respect to claim 20: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “the light device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hudson does not teach “further comprising, a battery disposed within the housing”.
Inskeep teaches “further comprising, a battery (26) disposed within the housing (see Fig. 2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light device of Hudson with the battery of Inskeep in order to provide energy to power the light device (Inskeep paragraph 22).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson in view of Ng as applied to claims 1, 13 above, and further in view of Todd (US 2021/0108782 A1).
With respect to claim 15: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “the light device of claim 13 (see above)”.
Hudson does not specifically teach “wherein the connection circuitry is wireless connection circuitry which receives wireless operation instructions for the light device”.
However, Todd teaches a light device “wherein the connection circuitry (120+128) is wireless connection circuitry which receives wireless operation instructions for the light device (paragraph 54)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light device of Hudson with the wireless connection taught by Todd as an art-recognized alternative to a wired connection for the purpose of controlling the light device (Todd paragraph 54).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson in view of Ng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han (US 8072123 B1).
With respect to claim 19: Hudson in view of Ng teaches “the light device of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hudson does not specifically teach “wherein mount is a threaded mount”.
However, Han teaches a light device mounted using a threaded mount (10).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light device of Hudson with the threaded mount of Han in order to be able to connect it with a typical screw-in socket (Han column 5 lines 19-21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McGee (US 5595441), which teaches a folding light source.
Yao et al. (US 20130335996 A1), which teaches a light source with rotating capabilities.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875