DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The applicant’s amendment filed 2/19/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 33 and 34 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed as they claim a different nexus of invention. Claim 1, 33, and 34 are all directed to different inventions.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 33 and 34 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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(s) 1-8 and 21-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al (US 2014/0043800 A1) in view of McClellan (US 2008/0122364 A1), and further, to validate Examiner Notice, in view of Vasta et al (US 2011/0249445 A1).
In regard to claims 1-4, Weber et al disclose a power tool light product, comprising:
a light body comprising a power tool battery pack receptacle (for 35), the power tool battery pack receptacle configured to removably receive a power tool battery pack to power the power tool light product; and
a lighting module, the lighting module operably coupled to the power tool battery pack receptacle,
wherein the lighting module comprises:
a printed circuit board (256 in Figure 14);
an LED (55) on the printed circuit board. (Figure 1; see at least [0029] onward)
Weber et al fail to disclose an LED driver on the printed circuit board.
McClellan teaches an LED driver on the printed circuit board, and as recited in claim 2, a controller (dimming circuit) on the printed circuit board, and as recited in claim 3, the LED driver is a constant current LED driver, and as recited in claim 4, an integrated circuit regulator configured to provide a constant output voltage. (Figure 2; see [0017] and [0078])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to install the driver of McClellan onto the PCB of Weber et al in order to form a compact lighting device.
In regard to the amendment filed 2/19/2026, the combination of Weber et al and McClellan fail to disclose a reflector configured to reflect light emitted by the LED and having an opening that extends peripherally around the LED: and a gasket disposed between the printed circuit board and the reflector at the opening to provide a seal that isolates the LED from the LED driver.
The Examiner had taken Official Notice on these limitations. As such, the Examiner provides a reference which teaches the limitations. This is not a new grounds of rejection, only a validation of the Examiner’s notice.
Vasta et al teaches a reflector configured to reflect light emitted by the LED and having an opening that extends peripherally around the LED: and a gasket disposed between the printed circuit board and the reflector at the opening to provide a seal that isolates the LED from the LED driver. (See Claim 9)
The Examiner further takes official notice that using gaskets for water-tightness is notoriously old and well-known, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a gasket to a reflector in order to prevent damage from moisture.
In regard to claims 5, the combination of Weber et al and McClellan fail to explicitly disclose the printed circuit board comprises an insulated metal substrate. However, PCB’s are known to be metal substrates wrapped by an insulator, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a known PCB in order to power the light sources.
In regard to claims 6 and 7, the combination of Weber et al and McClellan fail to explicitly disclose a connector wherein the connector is disposed near an edge of the printed circuit board.
However, the PCB must be connected to the battery pack somehow, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a connector on the edge of the PCB in order to connect it to the battery.
In regard to claims 8, the combination of Weber et al and McClellan disclose a controller mounted on the printed circuit board, wherein the connector facilitates connection of the controller to the power tool battery pack receptacle.
In regard to claims 21, Weber et al disclose a heat sink (360) coupled to the printed circuit board.
In regard to claims 22, Weber et al disclose the printed circuit board includes a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface.
In regard to claims 23, the combination of Weber et al and McClellan disclose the LED and the LED driver are mounted on the first surface of the printed circuit board.
In regard to claims 24, Weber et al disclose a heat sink (360) mounted to the second surface of the printed circuit board.
In regard to claims 25, Weber et al disclose a lighting module housing (217) configured to enclose at least a portion of the printed circuit board.
In regard to claims 27, the combination of Weber et al and McClellan disclose the printed circuit board includes a central region and an outer region that surrounds the central region, wherein the LED is mounted to the printed circuit board within the central region.
The combination of Weber et al and McClellan fail to disclose a gasket disposed between the printed circuit board and the reflector.
However, gaskets are notoriously old and well-known, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a gasket between the PCB and the reflector and around the center region in order to improve water tightness.
In regard to claims 28, the combination of Weber et al and McClellan fail to disclose a second gasket, wherein the second gasket is secured to an outer edge of the printed circuit board, such that the second gasket is disposed between the printed circuit board and the lighting module housing.
However, gaskets are notoriously old and well-known, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a gasket between the PCB and the housing in order to improve water tightness.
In regard to claims 29, the combination of Weber et al and McClellan disclose a controller that is operatively coupled between the LED driver and a user interface (260) of the power tool light product, wherein the LED driver and the controller are mounted to the printed circuit board within the outer region.
In regard to claims 30, Weber et al disclose a heat sink (360) mounted to the printed circuit board.
In regard to claims 31, the combination of Weber et al and McClellan disclose the LED, the LED driver, and the controller are mounted to a first surface of the printed circuit board, and wherein the heat sink (360) is mounted to a second surface of the printed circuit board that is opposite the first surface.
In regard to claim 32, Weber et al disclose the power tool battery pack is configured to selectively power the power tool light product and at least one of a drill, a saw, or a sander.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has challenged the Examiner’s Official Notice on limitations directed to gaskets on reflectors. The Examiner provides Vasta et al which teaches these known limitations. The Official Notice is now final, and is now considered applicant admitted prior art.
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 CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 6:00 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, James (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.
/CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights