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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At present, the prior art to Sharrah et al. (U.S. Patent 9,816,661 B2) remains commensurate to the scope of the claims as stated by Applicant and as broadly interpreted by the Examiner [MPEP 2111], which is elucidated and expounded upon below.
In response to Applicant’s arguments concerning the limitation, “wherein the contact surface defines an axial offset height relative to the base measured axially along the arm axis, and wherein the contact surface defines a unique axial offset height in each of the plurality of deployed positions,” it should be noted that Applicant writes, “In contrast, Sharrah discloses a portable light 10 with deployable legs 30a, 30b that are pivotable such that the legs 30a, 30b remain at a single axial offset relative to the base 20 when measured relative to the axis of the telescoping pole 40,” but contends that Sharrah does not discloses the contact surface of the leg assembly defining a unique axial offset height in each of the deployed position. However, the claim language is merely claiming a “unique axial offset height in each of the deployed positions,” whereby unique is considered a broad and relative term. In other words, each of the contact surfaces of the leg assembly may be considered defining a unique axial offset height in each of the deployed positions in that they are at a certain distance along the arm axis. The claim language does not specifically detail that the uniqueness of each axial offset height are “different” from one another with respect to the arm axis.
All arguments hinge on the above and have been considered by the Examiner.
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 21-27, 29-36, and 42-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,143,389. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both patent and application commonly recite the same limitations to the site light with the exception that the limitations are found in different claim combinations (e.g., Claims 21-22, 32 = Claim 1 of patent).
Claims 21-27, 29-36, and 42-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,674,673. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both patent and application commonly recite the same limitations to the site light with the exception that the limitations are found in different claim combinations (e.g., Claim 37 = Claim 14 of patent), as well as the patent teaching a power system with a battery terminal.
However, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the site light of the present application to incorporated the power system with battery terminal, since such battery terminals are well known in the art for providing addition power options when AC inputs or plugs are unavailable.
Claims 21-27, 29-36, and 42-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,933,481. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both patent and application commonly recite the same limitations to the site light with the exception that the limitations are found in different claim combinations (e.g., Claims 21-23, 32-33 = Claim 1 of the patent).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 21-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharrah et al. (U.S. Patent 9,816,661 B2).
With regards to Claim 21, Sharrah discloses a site light [Figures 1-8] including:
A body [e.g., (20)], wherein the body includes a base [e.g., (22u) or (27)];
A telescopic arm assembly [e.g., (40)] coupled to the body, wherein the telescopic arm assembly defines an arm axis [note Figures 1-8: as defined by the longitudinal axis of the arm extension];
A light assembly [e.g., (70)] coupled to the telescopic arm and movable with respect to the body; and
A leg assembly [e.g., (30)] coupled to the body and including a contact surface [e.g., note surface(s) on (30a, 30b)], wherein the leg assembly is adjustable between a stowed position and a plurality of deployed positions [e.g., 2 legs are deployed in different positions], wherein the leg assembly includes a first lock mechanism [e.g., (32) // (32p, 32h)] configured to selectively secure the leg assembly in a respective one of the plurality of deployed positions, and a second lock mechanism [e.g., (34a)] configured to selectively secure the leg assembly in a stowed position, wherein the second lock mechanism is disengaged when the leg assembly is in one of the plurality of deployed positions [note Figures 1-8], and wherein the first lock mechanism is disengaged when the leg assembly is in the stowed position [note Figures 1-8]; and
Wherein the contact surface defines an axial offset height relative to the base measured axially along the arm axis [note Figures 1-8], and wherein the contact surface defines a unique axial offset height in each of the plurality of deployed positions [e.g., Figure 2D: each contact surface defines a unique axial offset height in each of the plurality of deployed positions that is unique/different with respect to the base or the light or the handle (60)].
With regards to Claim 22, Sharrah discloses the first lock mechanism and the second lock mechanism are individually actuatable [note Figures 1-8].
With regards to Claim 23, Sharrah discloses both the first lock mechanism and the second lock mechanism include an individually actuatable latch [note Figures 1-8].
With regards to Claim 24, Sharrah discloses one of the first lock mechanism and the second lock mechanism is mounted to the leg assembly, and wherein the other of the first lock mechanism and the second lock mechanism is mounted to the body [note Figures 1-8].
With regards to Claim 25, Sharrah discloses the first lock mechanism is mounted to the leg assembly [e.g., (32p, 32h)].
With regards to Claim 26, Sharrah discloses the second lock mechanism [e.g., (34a)] engages the leg proximate the contact surface [e.g., note the buttons on (30a, 30b)].
With regards to Claim 27, Sharrah discloses the first lock mechanism [e.g., (32p, 32h)] interacts with the leg proximate an end of the leg opposite the contact surface [note Figures 1-8 – end, as broadly interpreted].
With regards to Claim 29, Sharrah discloses the first lock mechanism [e.g., (32)] includes a lock element [e.g., (32)] pivotably coupled to the leg, and wherein the lock element is pivotable between an engaged position, in which the lock element engages the body, and a disengaged position, in which the lock element does not engage the body [note Figures 1-8, as broadly interpreted].
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 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharrah et al. (U.S. Patent 9,816,661 B2).
With regards to Claim 30, Sharrah discloses the claimed invention as cited above. In addition, Sharrah teaches a light assembly/pod [e.g., (70)] including a housing [e.g., outside of (70)], a light module [e.g., “LEDs”] supported by the housing, a pivot bracket coupled to one end of the housing [e.g., (44a)], and a handle [e.g., (60)] opposite the pivot bracket, but does not specifically teach the light assembly includes a plurality of light pods movably coupled thereto.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the light pod to be a plurality of light pods movably coupled thereto, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case, providing for a plurality of light pods movably coupled thereto would provide increased illumination in multiple directions as desired.
With regards to Claim 31, Sharrah discloses the pivot bracket providing two degrees of freedom [note Figures 1-8 and Column 7, Lines 48-52].
Claims 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibran (U.S. Patent 4,215,839 A) in view of Sharrah et al. (U.S. Patent 9,816,661 B2).
With regards to Claim 32, Gibran discloses a site light [Figures 1-13] including:
A body (10) including a plurality of tracks (12),
An assembly coupled to the body [see Abstract: “support of a camera or other apparatus”]; and
A plurality of leg assemblies (16), each leg assembly coupled to the body and operable independently of each other, wherein each leg assembly is independently adjustable between a stowed position and one or more deployed positions, wherein each leg assembly includes:
A first lock mechanism (30) configured to selectively secure the leg assembly in a respective one of the one or more deployed positions,
A second lock mechanism (34) configured to selectively secure the leg assembly in the stowed position,
A leg (16) with a first end movably coupled to and configured to move along a corresponding track of the body and a second end opposite the first end that defines a contact surface (54), and wherein moving the first end along the corresponding track causes the leg assembly to adjust between the stowed position and the one or more deployed positions [note Figures 1-13].
Gibran does not specifically teach the assembly being a light assembly, which is taught by Sharrah [note Figures 1-8: (70)].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly of Gibran to be a light assembly, which is commonly known as taught in principle by Sharrah. Such an obvious configuration is well-known and established with respect to light supports.
With regards to Claim 33, Gibran discloses the first lock mechanism (30) being adjustable between an unlocked configuration, in which the first end of the leg is movable along the corresponding track, and a locked configuration, in which the first end of the leg is not movable along the corresponding track [note Figures 1-13].
With regards to Claim 34, Gibran discloses the second lock mechanism (34) being configured to fix the second end of the leg relative to the track [note Figures 1-13].
With regards to Claim 35, Gibran discloses the track (12) defines a track volume, and wherein the second end of the leg is positioned within the track volume when the leg is in the stowed position [note Figures 1-13].
With regards to Claim 36, Gibran discloses the second end of the leg is not within the track volume when the leg (16) is in the one or more deployed positions [note Figures 1-13].
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: With regards to Independent Claim 42, with the resolution of the double patenting rejection, the Applicant has sufficiently claimed and defined the site light including the body with a plurality of tracks, the light assembly coupled to the body, and the plurality of leg assemblies. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the combination of structural and functional limitations claimed therein, specifically to the details and dispositions of the plurality of tracks and/or the first and second lock mechanisms.
The prior art to Sharrah discloses a site light [Figures 1-8] including:
A body [e.g., (20)], wherein the body includes a base [e.g., (22) or (22L)];
A telescopic arm assembly [e.g., (40)] coupled to the body, wherein the telescopic arm defines an arm axis [note Figures 1-8];
A light assembly [e.g., (70)] coupled to the telescopic arm and movable with respect to the arm axis; and
A leg assembly [e.g., (30)] coupled to the body and including a contact surface [e.g., note surface(s) on (30a, 30b) – arbitrary], wherein the leg assembly is adjustable between a stowed position and a plurality of deployed positions [e.g., 2 legs are deployed in different positions], wherein the leg assembly includes a first lock mechanism [e.g., (32) // (32p, 32h)] configured to selectively secure the leg assembly in a respective one of the plurality of deployed positions, and a second lock mechanism [e.g., (34a)] configured to selectively secure the leg assembly in a stowed position, wherein the second lock mechanism is disengaged when the leg assembly is in one of the plurality of deployed positions [note Figures 1-8], and wherein the first lock mechanism is disengaged when the leg assembly is in the stowed position [note Figures 1-8], and
Wherein the contact surface defines an axial offset height relative to the base measured axially along (the) a longitudinal axis [note Figures 1-8], and wherein the contact surface defines a unique axial offset height in each of the plurality of deployed positions [note Figures 1-8: the contact surface each define a unique axial offset height in each of the plurality of deployed positions].
Sharrah does not specifically teach the plurality of tracks, and wherein
Each leg assembly includes a first lock mechanism mounted to and movable together with the leg assembly, where the first lock mechanism includes a lock element movably coupled to the leg, and wherein the lock element is movable between an engaged position, in which the lock element engages the body, and a disengaged position, in which the lock element does not engage the body), and
A leg with a first end movably coupled to and configured to move along a corresponding track of the body and a second end opposite the first end that defines a contact surface, and wherein moving the first end along the corresponding track causes the leg assembly to adjust between the stowed position and the one or more deployed positions.
Subsequent Claims 43-44 are allowed due to dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2207. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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.
Friday, March 13, 2026
/Jason M Han/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875