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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 02 October 2025 has been entered. No claims 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 28 February 2025 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.321 because:
The person who signed the terminal disclaimer (only for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012):
- is not the applicant, patentee or an attorney or agent of record. 37 CFR 1.321(a) and (b). (See FP 14.26.08).
- failed to state his/her capacity to sign for the juristic entity, and he/she has not been established as being authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. (See FP 14.26.09).
Please see Terminal Disclaimer review decision mailed 01 march 2025.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 21-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2, in view of VanWambeke et al. (US 2007/0002562 A1, herein referred to as: VanWambeke).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, and 9, U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 claims all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for said handle assembly is an elongated handle assembly.
However, 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 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 and incorporated the feature that handle assembly is an elongated handle assembly, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably motivated to increase the size of the handle for user grip purposes or to accompany additional space for attached components.
U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 claims all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for said removable cap is configured to removably enclose the lighter assembly when the lighter assembly is not operational.
However, 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 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 and incorporated the feature that said removable cap is configured to removably enclose the lighter assembly when the lighter assembly is not operational, in the instant case, the removable cap is configured to cover the lighter assembly, as it may be dangerous for a user to cover the assembly when the lighter is on, one skilled in the art would recognize such a feature would reasonably improve the safety features of the device.
U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 claims all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the main body assembly also including a controller assembly with (i) a lighter button that controls an operational mode of the lighter assembly, and (ii) an illumination button that controls an operational mode of the lighting assembly.
VanWambeke teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) a multi-purpose flashlight, comprising: an elongated handle assembly (17); a main body assembly (10, 12) coupled to the handle assembly (as shown in Figs. 1-5), the main body assembly (10, 12) including a lighter assembly (24) and a lighting assembly (18 and/or 28), the main body assembly also including a controller assembly (100) with (i) a lighter button (62) that controls an operational mode of the lighter assembly (paragraph [0020]), and (ii) an illumination button (44) that controls an operational mode of the lighting assembly (paragraph [0017]); and a removable cap (60) configured to removably enclose the lighter assembly when the lighter assembly is not operational (as shown in Figs. 1-3).
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 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 and incorporated the feature that the main body assembly also including a controller assembly with (i) a lighter button that controls an operational mode of the lighter assembly, and (ii) an illumination button that controls an operational mode of the lighting assembly, such as taught or suggested by VanWambeke, in order to improve the marketability and/or useability of the device (i.e., by providing a configuration by which the user can operate the lighter and lighting assembly individually).
Regarding claims 21-23, U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 claims all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the lighting assembly is positioned between the lighter assembly and both of the lighter and illumination buttons (as recited in claim 21); the lighter button and the illumination button are arranged in a side-by-side positional relationship (as recited in claim 22); wherein the lighter button and the illumination button are positioned between a lower edge of the main body and the lighting assembly (as recited in claim 23).
However, 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 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 and incorporated the feature that the lighting assembly is positioned between the lighter assembly and both of the lighter and illumination buttons (as recited in claim 21); the lighter button and the illumination button are arranged in a side-by-side positional relationship (as recited in claim 22); wherein the lighter button and the illumination button are positioned between a lower edge of the main body and the lighting assembly (as recited in claim 23), since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routing skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to position the lighting assembly, lighter and buttons closer to one another, and/or have been motivated to reduce the size of the device.
Regarding claim 24, U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 claims all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for a power supply assembly having a rechargeable power supply, a power controller, and a charging receptacle.
VanWambeke teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) a power supply assembly having a rechargeable power supply (80), a power controller (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0025]-[0028]), and a charging receptacle (within housing 12, as shown in Figs. 1-4).
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 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 and incorporated the feature of a power supply assembly having a rechargeable power supply, a power controller, and a charging receptacle, such as taught or suggested by VanWambeke, in order to improve or otherwise increase the marketability of the device (i.e., by providing a feature to recharge the batteries within the device).
Regarding claim 25, U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 claims all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the power supply assembly is located entirely within the main body assembly.
VanWambeke teaches or suggests (Figs. 1-5) the power supply assembly is located entirely within the main body assembly (within housing 12, as shown in Figs. 1-5).
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 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 and incorporated the feature of the power supply assembly is located entirely within the main body assembly, such as taught or suggested by VanWambeke, in order to improve, or otherwise increase, the longevity of the device (by enclosing and protecting the power supply entirely within the main body assembly).
Regarding claim 26, U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 claims all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for 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 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 and incorporated the feature 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 improve, or otherwise increase the marketability and/or performance of the device (i.e., by providing a feature to supply power to the device in the event one of the power supplies runs out or otherwise fails).
Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2, in view of VanWambeke, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Bian (US 2018/0224078 A1).
Regarding claim 27, U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 claims all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for 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 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 and incorporated the feature 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).
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2, in view of VanWambeke, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Basdeo et al. (US 2020/0240637 A1, herein referred to as: Basdeo).
Regarding claim 28, U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 claims all of the elements of the claimed invention, except for the lighter assembly comprises a flameless, plasma torch that is located at an upper end of the main body assembly.
Basdeo teaches or suggests the lighter assembly comprises a flameless, plasma torch (paragraph [0075]) that is located at an upper end of the main body assembly (as shown in Fig. 1A).
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 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,898,740 B2 and incorporated the feature of the lighter assembly comprises a flameless, plasma torch that is located at an upper end of the main body assembly, such as taught or suggested by Basdeo, 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 reliability of the device (i.e., by proving a lighter which can be powered from the battery of the device).
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, 22, 24-26, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by VanWambeke et al. (US 2007/0002562 A1, herein referred to as: VanWambeke).
Regarding claim 1, VanWambeke discloses (Figs. 1-5) a multi-purpose flashlight, comprising: an elongated handle assembly (17, and/or, the handle assembly of 28); a main body assembly (10, 12) coupled to the handle assembly (as shown in Figs. 1-5), the main body assembly (10, 12) including a lighter assembly (24) and a lighting assembly (18 and/or 28), the main body assembly also including a controller assembly (100) with (i) a lighter button (62) that controls an operational mode of the lighter assembly (paragraph [0020]), and (ii) an illumination button (44) that controls an operational mode of the lighting assembly (paragraph [0017]); and a removable cap (60) configured to removably enclose the lighter assembly when the lighter assembly is not operational (as shown in Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, VanWambeke discloses a multi-purpose flashlight (Figs. 1-5), comprising: a handle assembly (the upper portion of 12 coupling to 17, and 17; or the handle assembly of 28, and 70) including a top portion (a first half of 12; or the handle of 28) that is removably coupled to a bottom portion (a second half of 17; or 70), and wherein decoupling the top portion from the bottom portion provides access to a storage compartment formed within the handle assembly (as shown in Fig. 4; or the storage compartment for 28 within 70); and a main body assembly (the lower portion of 12 below said upper portion; or 12) coupled to the handle assembly (as shown in Figs. 1-4), said main body assembly including a lighter assembly (24), a lighter button (62) that controls operation of the lighter assembly (paragraph [0020]), a lighting assembly (18 and/or 28), and an illumination button (44) that controls operation of the lighting assembly (paragraph [0017]); and a battery (80) that supplies power to both of the lighter assembly and the lighting assembly (as described in paragraphs [0023]-[0029] and [0036]); wherein the lighter button and the illumination button are arranged in a side-by-side positional relationship (as shown in Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, VanWambeke discloses (Figs. 1-5) a removable cap (60) that is configured to be coupled to an upper extent of the main body assembly (the upper extend is not defined in the claims in relation to any other recited elements, thus, the portion having 60 thereon can be labeled an upper extent) and to enclose the lighter assembly (24) when the lighter assembly is not operational (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, VanWambeke discloses (Figs. 1-5) the lighter button (62) and the illumination button (44) are arranged in a side-by-side positional relationship (all of the buttons are arranged in a side-by-side positional relationship, as shown in Fig. 1. Additionally, the Examiner notes that “side-by-side positional relationship” does not appear to define anything more than the buttons being next to one another).
Regarding claim 24, VanWambeke discloses (Figs. 1-5) a power supply assembly having a rechargeable power supply (80), a power controller (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0025]-[0028]), and a charging receptacle (within housing 12, as shown in Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 25, VanWambeke discloses (Figs. 1-5) the power supply assembly is located entirely within the main body assembly (within housing 12, as shown in Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 26, VanWambeke discloses (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).
Regarding claim 31, VanWambeke discloses (Figs. 1-5) the battery (80) is part of a power supply assembly that also includes a power controller (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0025]-[0028]) and a charging receptacle (disposed within housing 12, as shown in Figs. 1-4), wherein the power supply assembly is located entirely within the main body assembly (as shown in Figs. 1-4). Regarding claim 32, VanWambeke discloses (Figs. 1-5) the battery comprises both a rechargeable battery (80) and a removable, non-rechargeable battery (82; i.e., 82 are replaceable batteries intended for backup, and thus, implicitly non-rechargeable).
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 VanWambeke, in view of Zirk et al. (US 2004/0174700 A1, herein referred to as Zirk).
Regarding claim 3, VanWambeke 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 VanWambeke 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, 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 VanWambeke, in view of Cho (US 2010/0103656 A1).
Regarding claim 5, VanWambeke 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 VanWambeke 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 VanWambeke, in view of Summers (US 2008/0316737 A1).
Regarding claim 9, VanWambeke 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 VanWambeke 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 VanWambeke, in view of Lynch et al. (US 2002/0036902 A1, herein referred to as Lynch).
Regarding claim 12, VanWambeke 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 VanWambeke 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 16 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanWambeke, in view of Bian (US 2018/0224078 A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 27, VanWambeke 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 VanWambeke 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).
Claims 21, 23, 29, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanWambeke.
Regarding claims 21 and 29, VanWambeke does not explicitly teach that the lighting assembly is positioned between the lighter assembly and both of the lighter and illumination buttons.
However, 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 VanWambeke and positioned the lighting assembly between the lighter assembly and both of the lighter and illumination buttons, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routing skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to position the lighting assembly, lighter and buttons closer to one another, and/or have been motivated to reduce the size of the device.
Regarding claims 23 and 30, VanWambeke does not explicitly teach that the lighter button and the illumination button are positioned between a lower edge of the main body and the lighting assembly.
However, 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 VanWambeke and positioned the lighter button and the illumination button between a lower edge of the main body and the lighting assembly, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routing skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to position the above-recited components closer to one another, and/or have been motivated to reduce the size or width of the device
Claims 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanWambeke, in view of Basdeo et al. (US 2020/0240637 A1, herein referred to as: Basdeo).
Regarding claim 28, VanWambeke does not explicitly teach that the lighter assembly comprises a flameless, plasma torch that is located at an upper end of the main body assembly.
Basdeo teaches or suggests the lighter assembly comprises a flameless, plasma torch (paragraph [0075]) that is located at an upper end of the main body assembly (as shown in Fig. 1A).
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 VanWambeke and incorporated the teachings of the lighter assembly comprises a flameless, plasma torch that is located at an upper end of the main body assembly, such as taught or suggested by Basdeo, 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 reliability of the device (i.e., by proving a lighter which can be powered from the battery of the device).
Regarding claim 33, VanWambeke does not explicitly teach that the lighter assembly comprises a flameless, plasma torch that is located at an upper end of the top portion of the main body assembly.
Basdeo teaches or suggests the lighter assembly comprises a flameless, plasma torch (paragraph [0075]) that is located at an upper end of the top portion of the main body assembly (as shown in Fig. 1A).
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 VanWambeke and incorporated the teachings of the lighter assembly comprises a flameless, plasma torch that is located at an upper end of the top portion of the main body assembly, such as taught or suggested by Basdeo, 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 reliability of the device (i.e., by proving a lighter which can be powered from the battery of the device).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding the appropriateness of the finality of the office action mailed 03 June 2025, pages 5-6 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, the cited limitations amended into the claims by Applicant’s amendment filed 28 February 2025 were not recited in the claims filed 30 January 2024, and thus, were not present in the claims before the amendments provided in the response from Applicant filed 28 February 2025. Thus, the Examiner maintains that the finality of the final office action mailed 03 June 2025 is proper.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., those recited in paragraphs [0059] and [0062], page 7 of the above-cited remarks) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument that VanWambeke does not disclose “...a lighter assembly...,” pages 7-9 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is respectfully advised that while the claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). In this case, the Examiner respectfully notes that the term “lighter assembly” does not explicitly or implicitly require that the assembly be producing a flame or other source suitable for ignition. Furthermore, the lighter button is recited as merely controlling “...an operation mode of the lighter assembly...,” and not particularly that the mode is activating the lighter assembly to ignite or otherwise produce a flammable source suitable for igniting another element. In light of the above, one skilled in the art would reasonably view the cigar lighter (24) of VanWambeke as a lighter assembly in the context of the claims, as said cigar lighter reasonably forms an assembly which can effectively be used to ignite, at least, a cigar by itself or with other mean usable with said lighter assembly (24) to form the ignition. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that 24 of VanWambeke reasonably forms a lighter assembly.
In response to Applicant’s argument that VanWambeke does not disclose “...a lighter button that controls an operational mode of the lighter assembly...,” page 9 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is respectfully advised that while the claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). In this case, there is no mention of any particular structure for the button itself, or for its mode of being activated (e.g., by pressing in or being pushed by a user). Thus, one skilled in the art would reasonably understand that the portion of the switch particularly, which the user actuates to change modes, forms a button. Furthermore, the mode or operation formed by actuating said button is not particularly recited in the claims or otherwise implied in the term “an operational mode of the lighter assembly.” Therefore, the Examiner respectfully maintains that, in the context of the claims as presently presented, VanWambeke reasonably discloses the above-cited limitation.
In response to Applicant’s argument that VanWambeke does not disclose “...a removable cap configured to removably enclose the lighter assembly when the lighter assembly is not operational...,” page 9 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, as noted above, the cigar lighter 24 reasonably constitutes a “lighter assembly” in the context of the claims, as no particulars in either operation or structure are reasonably implied by the term “lighter assembly.” In light of the above, removable cap (60) reasonably constitutes a removable cap for said lighter assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please see US 2014/0119040 A1 and US 2014/0119041 A1 both to Petrucelli, pertinent to the feature of a multimodal push button/control configuration.
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