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 amendment filed on 12 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 10, 21-23, 28-30, and 33 have been amended. Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 11, 13, 15, and 17-20 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14, 16, and 21-33 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 10 being independent.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 16 October 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11,898,740 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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, 10, 14, 21-25, 28-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lemon et al. (US 10,670,253 B1, herein referred to as: Lemon).
Regarding claim 1, Lemon discloses a multi-purpose flashlight (Figs. 1-40g), comprising: an elongated handle assembly (105); a main body assembly (107, 108, 113, 122) coupled to the elongated handle assembly (e.g., as shown in Fig. 1), including a flameless plasma torch (107, 108) and a lighting assembly (113), the main body assembly also including a controller assembly with (i) a flameless plasma torch button (one or more of 112a, 112b, or 121, depending on the selected mode) configured to cause the flameless plasma torch to ignite (as noted in col. 4-6 and col. 9-10), and (ii) an illumination button (one or more of 112a, 112b, or 121 depending on the selected mode) that controls an operational mode of the lighting assembly (as noted in col. 4-6 and col. 9-10); and a removable cap (122) configured to removably enclose the flameless plasma torch (107, 108) when the flameless plasma torch is not ignited (e.g., as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Lemon discloses a multi-purpose flashlight (Figs. 1-40g), comprising: a handle assembly (105, 126) including a top portion (126) that is removably coupled to a bottom portion (103), and wherein decoupling the top portion from the bottom portion provides access to a storage compartment formed within the handle assembly (for storing 117, as shown in Figs. 11-12; additionally, decoupling 122 from 105 provides storage for 107, 108, and thus may also form a top portion and bottom portion of the handle); a main body assembly (107, 108, 113, 122) coupled to the handle assembly (as shown in Figs. 1, 11, and 12), said main body assembly (107, 108, 113, 122) including a flameless plasma torch (107, 108), a lighter button (one of 112a or 112b) configured to cause the flameless plasma torch to ignite (as noted in col. 4-6 and col. 9-10), a lighting assembly (113), and an illumination button (another of 112a, 112b) that controls operation of the lighting assembly (as noted in col. 4-6 and col. 9-10); and a battery (120) that supplies power to both of the flameless plasma torch and the lighting assembly (e.g., as noted in col. 4-6 and col. 9-10, and as shown in Figs. 6-10), wherein the flameless plasma torch button and the illumination button are arranged in a side-by-side positional relationship (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Lemon discloses (Figs. 1-40g) a removable cap (122) that is configured to be coupled to an upper extent (an end portion of 107) of the main body assembly (as shown in Figs. 11-12, and as noted in the corresponding description: “...tail cap 122 includes a generally cylindrical body that fits over the arc prongs 108 and connects to the arc lighter 107 or handle 105 or another portion of the housing 101...”).
Regarding claim 21, Lemon discloses (Figs. 1-40g) the lighting assembly (113) is positioned between the flameless plasma torch (107, 108) and both of the flameless plasma torch button and the illumination button (112a, 112b; i.e., an edge of lighting assembly 113 is positioned between 107, 108 and 112a, 112b, thus, and thus at least a portion of 113 is located between said elements).
Regarding claim 22, Lemon discloses (Figs. 1-40g) the flameless plasma torch button (one of 112a, 112b) and the illumination button (another of 112a, 112b) are arranged in a side-by-side positional relationship (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, Lemon discloses (Figs. 1-40g) the flameless plasma torch button (one of 112a, 112b) and the illumination button (another of 112a, 112b) are positioned between a lower edge of the main body (a lower edge of 122) and the lighting assembly (113; i.e., 112a, 112b are between at least an upper edge of 113 and a lower edge of 122, and thus between the recited elements).
Regarding claim 24, Lemon discloses (Figs. 1-40g) a power supply assembly having a rechargeable power supply (120; Fig. 5), a power controller (the power controller controlling power modes, e.g., shown in Figs. 6-10), and a charging receptacle (109, 110).
Regarding claim 25, Lemon discloses (Figs. 1-40g) the power supply assembly is located entirely within the main body assembly (as shown in Figs. 11-12, i.e., within 113).
Regarding claim 28, Lemon discloses (Figs. 1-40g) the flameless plasma torch (107, 108) is located at an upper end (122) of the main body assembly (107, 108, 113, 122).
Regarding claim 29, Lemon discloses (Figs. 1-40g) the lighting assembly (113) is positioned between the flameless plasma torch (107, 108) and both of the flameless plasma torch button and the illumination button (112a, 112b; i.e., an edge of lighting assembly 113 is positioned between 107, 108 and 112a, 112b, thus, and thus at least a portion of 113 is located between said elements).
Regarding claim 30, Lemon discloses (Figs. 1-40g) the flameless plasma torch button (one of 112a, 112b) and the illumination button (another of 112a, 112b) are positioned between a lower edge of the main body (a lower edge of 122) and the lighting assembly (113; i.e., 112a, 112b are between at least an upper edge of 113 and a lower edge of 122, and thus between the recited elements).
Regarding claim 31, Lemon discloses (Figs. 1-40g) the battery is part of a power supply assembly that also includes a power controller (the power controller controlling power modes, e.g., shown in Figs. 6-10) and a charging receptacle (109, 110), wherein the power supply assembly is located entirely within the main body assembly (as shown in Figs. 11-12, i.e., within 113).
Regarding claim 33, Lemon discloses (Figs. 1-40g) the flameless plasma torch (107, 108) is located at an upper end of the top portion of the main body assembly (there is no top portion of the main body in the recited claims, only the top portion of the handle, thus, said plasma torch is located on an upper end of the main body assembly formed by 122. Additionally, the Examiner notes that portions such as top, bottom, left, right, are not clearly defined by the scope of the claims in such a way as to inhibit mere allocation to a given “an upper end” of the main body).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemon, in view of Zirk et al. (US 2004/0174700 A1, herein referred to as Zirk).
Regarding claim 3, Lemon does not explicitly teach that the elongated handle assembly includes a cutting and opening assembly that includes a blade and a beverage opener that has a protrusion.
Zirk teaches or suggests an elongated handle assembly (Figs. 1-28) includes a cutting and opening assembly that includes a blade and a beverage opener that has a protrusion (as shown in Figs. 1-28 and as described in paragraph [0091]).
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 Lemon and incorporated the teachings of the elongated handle assembly includes a cutting and opening assembly that includes a blade and a beverage opener that has a protrusion, such as taught or suggested by Zirk, in order to increase the utility of the device (i.e., by providing the handle with a feature to cut objects and open bottles when needed).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemon, in view of Cho (US 2010/0103656 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lemon does not explicitly teach that the elongated handle assembly includes a magnetic attachment means positioned substantially flush with a lowermost surface of the flashlight.
Cho teaches or suggests (Figs. 4 and 6) an elongated handle assembly (forming flashlight shown in Figs. 4 and 6) includes a magnetic attachment means (11, 1051) positioned substantially flush with a lowermost surface of the flashlight (as shown in Fig. 4).
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 Lemon and incorporated the teachings of the elongated handle assembly includes a magnetic attachment means positioned substantially flush with a lowermost surface of the flashlight, such as taught or suggested by Cho, 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, or otherwise increasing, the marketability and/or utility of the device (i.e. by providing an embodiment by which one can retrieve dropped magnetic objects from spaces that are difficult for a user to access).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemon, in view of Summers (US 2008/0316737 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Lemon does not explicitly teach that the removable cap includes a glass-breaker.
Summers teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-20) a removable cap (1) includes a glass-breaker (5, 7).
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 Lemon and incorporated the teachings of the removable cap including a glass-breaker, such as taught or suggested by Summers, 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, or otherwise increasing, the marketability and/or utility of the device (i.e. by providing an embodiment by which one can utilize the device to break glass, e.g. a window, in an emergency situation).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemon, in view of Lynch et al. (US 2002/0036902 A1, herein referred to as Lynch).
Regarding claim 12, Lemon does not explicitly teach that a blade coupled to the bottom portion of the handle assembly.
Lynch teaches or suggests (Fig. 9A-9B) a blade (e.g., a pocket knife, paragraph [0077]) coupled to the bottom portion of the handle assembly (via 58, additionally, it is noted that the claim does not explicitly recite the manner in which the blade is coupled to the bottom portion of the handle).
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 Lemon and incorporated the teachings of a blade coupled to the bottom portion of the handle assembly, such as taught or suggested by Lynch, in order to improve or otherwise increase the utility of the device (i.e., by coupling a blade to the bottom of the handle for use as needed).
Claims 26 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemon, in view of VanWambeke et al. (US 2007/0002562 A1, herein referred to as: VanWambeke).
Regarding claims 26 and 32, lemon does not explicitly teach that the power supply assembly includes both the rechargeable power supply and a removable, non-rechargeable power supply.
VanWambeke teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) the power supply assembly includes both the rechargeable power supply (80) and a removable, non-rechargeable power supply (82; i.e., 82 are replaceable batteries intended for backup, and thus, implicitly non-rechargeable).
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 Lemon and incorporated the teachings of the power supply assembly includes both the rechargeable power supply and a removable, non-rechargeable power supply, such as taught or suggested by VanWambeke, in order to increase the utility and/or marketability of the device (e.g., by providing a configuration by which the device can be utilized with rechargeable or replaceable batteries in the event no source is available to recharge the rechargeable batteries).
Claims 16 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemon, in view of Bian (US 2018/0224078 A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 27, Lemon does not explicitly teach that the multi-purpose flashlight meets the IP67 waterproof standard.
Bian teaches or suggests (paragraph [0042]) the multi-purpose flashlight (10, Fig. 1) meets the IP67 waterproof standard (as described in paragraph [0042]).
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 Lemon and incorporated the teachings of the multi-purpose flashlight meets the IP67 waterproof standard, such as taught or suggested by Bian, in order to improve the performance and/or longevity of the device (i.e., by providing water and dust resistance so the device can be used indoors and outdoors).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14, 16, and 21-33 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. Applicant’s amendment (i.e., “...a flameless plasma torch button configured to cause the flameless plasma torch to ignite...”) presents a new, narrower, limitation than that previously defined by the scope of the claims, and thereby necessitated further search and/or consideration of the collective claim limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please see DE 1962866 A1 to Kraft and US-6142769-A to Walker, pertinent to various features recited in claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14, 16, and 21-33.
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
Prosecution Insights