DETAILED ACTION
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 05/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are pending in this application.
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.
Claims 14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PROEBER (US 2018/0119935), and in view of GARCIA (US 8,853,951), DRAKE (US 2013/0094211), and SHARRAH (US 2015/0192243).
Regarding claim 14, PROEBER discloses a method capable of controlling a battery-powered light tower, the method comprising installing a pair of wheels (4042, Fig.22) on a frame and laterally separated from one another, and a user interface (4026, Fig.49) arranged on an external surface of the frame.
PROEBER fails to explicitly disclose installing a battery pack on a frame location between an extendible mast and a user interface; wherein the wheels are arranged between the user interface and the extendible mast, displaying, on the user interface, a numeric runtime based on a light intensity of a light assembly; receiving, from a light input on the user interface, a light intensity change input; detecting, via a light sensor, a brightness of the light assembly; instructing a plurality of dimmable drivers to change a brightness of the light assembly by adjusting a power provided by the battery pack to the light assembly; displaying, on a screen of the user interface, an updated numeric runtime resulting from the change in the brightness of the light assembly.
However, GARCIA discloses displaying, on a user interface, a numeric runtime based on a light intensity of a light assembly (as seen in col.1, lines 41-60, the display 304 shows the numeric runtime based on a light intensity 210 of a light assembly 208); receiving, from a light input on the user interface, a light intensity change input (as seen in col.1, lines 41-60, the user interface 306, 308 changes the light intensity of the light assembly 208 [e.g. brighter or dimmer]); detecting, via a light sensor, a brightness of the light assembly (see claims 4-5); instructing a dimmable driver (208, Fig.2) to change a brightness of the light assembly by adjusting a power provided by a battery pack to the light assembly (as seen in col.1, lines 41-60, the battery is monitored based on the current battery charge, the selected numeric runtime, and the selected light intensity to calculate current the dimmable driver drives the light assembly); displaying, on the user interface, an updated numeric runtime resulting from the change in the brightness of the light assembly (as seen in col.1, lines 41-60, the display 304 shows the numeric runtime based on the selected light intensity of the light assembly 208).
However, DRAKE discloses displaying, on a screen (62, Fig.12) of the user interface, an updated numeric runtime resulting from the change in the brightness of a light assembly (as seen in Fig.1 and para[0037], the screen 62 displays the brightness of each light assembly 40/zone 1-4).
However, SHARRAH discloses a battery pack (B2, Fig.4B) on a frame (20, Fig.4B) location between an extendible mast (42e, Fig.4B) and a user interface (96, Fig.4B; as seen in Fig.4B, a portion of the battery pack B2 was considered to be in a location generally between the user interface 96 and the extendible mast 42e).
Therefore, in view of GARCIA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate displaying a numeric runtime, receiving a light intensity change, and dimming the light assembly as taught by GARCIA to the light tower of PROEBER in order to inform the user of the runtime of the light assembly based on the light intensity and the current battery charge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the method is a typical method to adjust the light intensity: receiving an input to change the light intensity and then adjusting the power to the light assembly. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that displaying the runtime or how long the light assembly will operate is a typical user interface to inform the user of the duration of the operation.
Therefore, in view of GARCIA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a light sensor as taught by GARCIA to the light tower of PROEBER in order to control the light assembly based on the ambient light.
Regarding “a plurality of dimmable drivers”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the dimmable driver of PROEBER modified by GARCIA in order to drive multiple light sources.
Therefore, in view of DRAKE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a screen as taught by DRAKE to the user interface of PROEBER modified by GARCIA in order to display information of the LEDs such as the brightness.
Therefore, in view of SHARRAH, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a battery pack in a location between an extendible mast and a user interface as taught by SHARRAH to the battery pack of PROEBER modified by GARCIA and DRAKE in order to merely rearrange the battery and the user interface such that the battery is between the user interface and the extendible mast.
Regarding “the wheels are arranged between the user interface and the extendible mast”, it is well within one of ordinary skill in the art to merely reposition the wheels along the frame such that the wheels are arranged between the user interface and the extensible mast. The prior art of record shows examples of wheels typically positioned on the frame spaced apart from the extendible mast to balance the light tower. In addition, the location of the wheels was not considered to be inventive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wheels arranged between the user interface and the extendible mast to the light tower of PROEBER modified by GARCIA, DRAKE, and SHARRAH in order to reposition the wheels along the frame.
Regarding claim 16, PROEBER modified by GARCIA, DRAKE, and SHARRAH and as discussed above for claim 14 further discloses determining an amount of power required from the battery pack to run for a time period based on a different between the numeric runtime and the updated numeric runtime (as seen in col.1, lines 41-60 of GARCIA, the battery is monitored based on the current battery charge, the selected numeric runtime, and the selected light intensity to calculate current the dimmable driver drives the light assembly).
Regarding claim 17, PROEBER further discloses selectively switching the battery pack into a charge state to allow for charging of the battery pack by a charger (as seen in para[0120], the battery pack 180 is charged by the charger 512).
Regarding claim 19, PROEBER modified by GARCIA, DRAKE, and SHARRAH as discussed above for claim 17 further discloses communicating, to a user device, the numeric runtime (as seen in col.1, lines 41-60 of GARCIA, the display 304 shows the numeric runtime based on a light intensity 210 of a light assembly 208).
Regarding claim 20, PROEBER modified by GARCIA, DRAKE, and SHARRAH as discussed above for claim 19 further discloses operating the battery pack between a normal operating mode and an increased operating mode; and displaying, on the user device, the updated numeric runtime resulting from a switch between the normal operating mode and the increased operating mode (as seen in col.1, lines 41-60 of GARCIA, the battery is monitored based on the current battery charge, the selected numeric runtime, and the selected light intensity to calculate current the dimmable driver drives the light assembly; the normal operating mode was considered to be one level of light intensity and the increased operating mode was considered to be a brighter lighter intensity).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PROEBER (US 2018/0119935) modified by GARCIA (US 8,853,951), DRAKE (US 2013/0094211), and SHARRAH (US 2015/0192243), and in view of PANOPOULOS (US 2015/0035437).
Regarding claim 15, PROEBER modified by GARCIA, DRAKE, and SHARRAH fails to disclose detecting, via a motion sensor, motion within a field of view; and repositioning, via an electric motor, the light assembly to track the motion.
However, PANOPOULOS discloses a motion sensor detecting motion within a field of view, an electric motor repositioning a light assembly to track the motion. (as seen in para[0059], para[0230]-para[0231], and para[0243], a motion sensor detects an object and, in response, the controller controls a light source to track and illuminate the object ).
Therefore, in view of PANOPOULOS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a motion sensor as taught by PANOPOULOS to the light tower of PROEBER modified by GARCIA, DRAKE, and SHARRAH in order to provide a typical sensor for illumination devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a motion sensor is a typical sensor for illumination devices to conserve power when no motion is detected in the area.
Therefore, in view of PANOPOULOS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an electric motor as taught by PANOPOULOS to the light assembly of PROEBER modified by GARCIA, DRAKE, and SHARRAH in order to redirect illumination to occupied area of motion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a motion sensor and electric motors to move the light assembly is a typical combination to redirect illumination devices to occupied area of motion such as people.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PROEBER (US 2018/0119935) modified by GARCIA (US 8,853,951), DRAKE (US 2013/0094211), and SHARRAH (US 2015/0192243), and in view of FLESCH (US 2019/0032867).
Regarding claim 18, PROEBER modified by GARCIA, DRAKE, and SHARRAH fails to disclose receiving a charging schedule that controls an interval, date, or time when the battery pack is charged by a charger.
However, FLESCH discloses receiving a charging schedule that controls an interval, date, or time when the battery pack is charged by a charger (as seen in para[0017], the controller 28 receives a charging schedule [e.g. charging the battery pack 26 at a specific time]).
However, in view of FLESCH, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a charging schedule as taught by FLESCH to the light tower of PROEBER modified by GARCIA, DRAKE, and SHARRAH in order to routinely charge the battery pack.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued “Claim 14 recites, in part, a light tower including a pair of wheels coupled to the frame and laterally separated from one another, wherein the wheels are arranged between the user interface and the extendible mast.
Applicant respectfully submits that the combined teachings of Proeber, Garcia, Drake, and Sharrah fail to disclose, teach, or suggest a light tower including a pair of wheels coupled to the frame and laterally separated from one another, wherein the wheels are arranged between the user interface and the extendible mast”.
In response to applicant’s argument, as discussed above for claim 14, PROEBER discloses a pair of wheels (4042, Fig.22) on a frame and laterally separated from one another. While PROEBER fails to disclose the wheels are arranged between the user interface and the extendible mast, it is well within one of ordinary skill in the art to merely reposition the wheels along the frame such that the wheels are arranged between the user interface and the extensible mast. The prior art of record shows examples of wheels typically positioned on the frame spaced apart from the extendible mast to balance the light tower. In addition, the location of the wheels was not considered to be inventive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wheels arranged between the user interface and the extendible mast to the light tower of PROEBER modified by GARCIA, DRAKE, and SHARRAH in order to reposition the wheels along the frame. It is noted that the method of controlling the light tower as recited in claims 14-20 are recited in different claim dependencies that were addressable from the prior art. Therefore, the references disclose the limitations as currently claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 8-13 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1 and the dependent claims, the following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter: The prior art taken as a whole does not show or suggest the combination of all the claimed limitations, specifically a light tower comprising a frame; an extendible mast coupled to the frame, wherein the extendible mast is configured to move between a lowered position and a raised position; a battery pack supported on the frame and including a plurality of lithium-ion battery cells; a plurality of light assemblies, each including a light emitting diode, wherein the light assemblies are each coupled to the extendible mast and the light emitting diodes are electrically coupled to the battery pack; a user interface configured to receive an input runtime, wherein the user interface is arranged on an external surface of the frame and includes a screen and a plurality of light inputs, wherein each of the light inputs is in communication with a respective one of the light assemblies and is configured to adjust a brightness of the respective one of the light assemblies; a pair of wheels coupled to the frame and laterally separated from one another, wherein the wheels are arranged between the user interface and the extendible mast; a lid pivotably coupled to a hinge, wherein the lid is pivotably movable between an open position and a closed position where the user interface is covered by the lid; a charger in communication with the battery pack; and a controller in communication with the battery pack, the light assemblies, and the user interface, the controller being configured to receive the input runtime from the user interface; determine an available power output of the battery pack; determine a light intensity of the light assemblies based on the input runtime and the available power output of the battery pack to ensure the light assemblies operate for the input runtime; switch the battery pack into a charge state to allow for charging of the battery pack from the charger; receive a charging schedule that controls an interval, date, or time when the battery pack is charged by the charger; and instruct the charger to charge the battery pack according to the charging schedule.
Regarding claim 8 and the dependent claims, the following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter: The prior art taken as a whole does not show or suggest the combination of all the claimed limitations, specifically a light tower comprising a frame; an extendible mast coupled to the frame, wherein the extendible mast is configured to move between a lowered position and a raised position; a battery pack including a plurality of lithium-ion battery cells, the battery pack coupled to the frame; a plurality of light assemblies, each including a light emitting diode, wherein the light assemblies are each coupled to the extendible mast and the light emitting diodes are electrically coupled to the battery pack; a user interface arranged on an external surface of the frame and including a screen and a plurality of light inputs, wherein each of the light inputs is in communication with a respective one of the light assemblies and is configured to adjust a brightness of the respective one of the light assemblies, and wherein the battery pack is coupled to the frame in a location that is between the user interface and the extendible mast; a pair of wheels coupled to the frame and laterally separated from one another, wherein the wheels are arranged between the user interface and the extendible mast; a charger in communication with the battery pack; and a controller in communication with the light assemblies, the user interface, and the battery pack, the controller being configured to switch the battery pack into a charge state to allow for charging of the battery pack from the charger; receive a charging schedule that controls an interval, date, or time when the battery pack is charged by the charger; communicate, to the user interface, a runtime based on a light intensity of the light emitting diodes; receive an available power output of the battery pack and, in response, operate the battery pack between a normal operating mode and an increased operating mode; and display, on the user interface, an updated runtime resulting from a switch between the normal operating mode and the increased operating mode.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES ENDO whose telephone number is (571)272-2782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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 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.
/J.M.E/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/JONG-SUK (JAMES) LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights