DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the clean version of the abstract filed by applicant in the preliminary amendment, "The provided" on the first line thereof should be changed to --Provided--. In the clean version of the specification filed by applicant in the preliminary amendment, "one of the" on the first line of paragraph [0003] should be changed to --an--, and on lines 4 and 5 of this paragraph, the word "the" should be changed to --their-- (both occurrences). On the first line of paragraph [0043], the word "further" before "included" should be deleted. On line 7 of paragraph [0045], the word --values-- should be inserted after "LMAX". On line 18 of paragraph [0045], the word "shortly" should be changed to --briefly--, and on line 19 of this paragraph, the word --the-- should be inserted before "lighting". On the second line of paragraph [0047], the word "through" should be changed to --via--. On the first line of paragraph [0054], the word "further" before "configured" should again be deleted (and note that the same deletion should also be made on the first line of paragraph [0061] and on the first line of paragraph [0063]).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
On lines 2-3 of claim 1, the recitation of "a second switch" lacks antecedent basis, the reason being that no first switch is recited anywhere in the claim, i.e., for purposes of proper antecedent basis it is necessary to recite a first switch prior to reciting a second switch (or at least recite a first switch somewhere in the claim). The reason that only reciting a second switch is indefinite is because it cannot be determined by the examiner exactly how many switches claim 1 requires. The recitation of only a second switch suggests that claim 1 only requires one switch, because no other switch is recited anywhere in the claim, whereas the use of the word "second" suggests that two switches are required by claim 1, i.e., first and second switches where only one of them has been recited. In view of this, the exact scope of claim 1 cannot be determined by the examiner. If applicant intends claim 1 to require or include just one switch, the word “second” on line 2 should be changed to --first--, whereas if applicant intends claim 1 to require or include a pair of switches, the claim should be amended so as to recite --a first switch-- either before after the second switch set forth on lines 2-3 of the claim.
Also indefinite in claim 1 is the recitation of "N user-definable modes", i.e., it cannot be determined by the examiner if applicant means that N is one or more, or if applicant means that N is two or more. Applicant should amend this limitation so as to specify if N is one or more, or if N is two or more. Note the same problem regarding the recitation of "M levels" on the penultimate line of claim 1, i.e., applicant should amend claim 1 so as to indicate either that applicant means that M is one or more, or that M is two or more.
As to claims 2-12, these claims are indefinite in view of their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on indefinite claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcucci et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0057239.
Marcucci et al discloses, in figure 7,
a flashlight (note paragraph [0073] of Marcucci et al which indicates that the figure 7 circuitry can be included in a flashlight) with user-definable modes (the user-definable modes are the DULLING mode and the VIVIFYING mode, which can be set by the user via switch 116), comprising: a light-emitting diode (the claimed LED reads on any one or more of LEDs 120 through 170 shown in figure 7 of Marcucci et al), an LED driving circuit (the claimed LED driving circuit reads on the combination of rheostats 122 through 172), a control circuit (the claimed control circuit reads on reads on the combination of power source 112 and switch 114) and a second switch (switch 116), wherein
the LED driving circuit and the second switch are electrically connected to the control circuit (note that the second switch 116 in Marcucci et al's figure 7 is directly connected to the above-noted control circuit, and also note that the rheostats 122 through 172 are indirectly connected to the above-noted control circuit, i.e., they are connected to the control circuit via LEDs 120 through 170), respectively; the LED driving circuit is electrically connected to the LED (note that the rheostats 122 through 172 in Marcucci et al's figure 7 are electrically connected to the LEDs 120 through 170); and
the second switch is configured to define at least one working mode of the flashlight: a setting mode (note that switch 116 shown in Marcucci et al's figure 7 is configured to define a setting mode, i.e., it is switched to either the DULLING mode or the VIVIFYING mode, and note also that M different brightness levels of LEDs 120 through 170 can be set via adjustment of the values of rheostats 122 through 172); when the second switch is in the setting mode, the control circuit configures the flashlight into N user-definable modes (note that during operation of the Marcucci et al circuitry, when switch 116 is set to the DULLING mode or VIVIFYING mode, switch 114 of the above-noted control circuit is closed, i.e., configured, and Marcucci et al's flashlight is thereby configured into N user-definable modes, i.e., N=2 for the two modes that switch 116 is able to select between), and each of the N user-definable modes supports M levels (the M different brightness levels of LEDs 120 through 170 is equal to two or more, i.e., as noted above the number of different levels of current that can be set to flow through the rheostats and LEDs can be set via the adjustment of the rheostats, e.g., if each rheostat can set two different currents, then M=2, whereas if each rheostat can set more than two different currents, then M=3 or more); and values of N and M are both less than or equal to a preset upper limit of the flashlight (inherently or obviously during operation of the Marcucci et al figure 7 circuitry, N will be less than or equal to a preset upper limit of the flashlight, and likewise M will also be less than or equal to a preset upper limit of the flashlight, i.e., if the preset limit in Marcucci et al N is two, then inherently or obviously the number of different modes in Marcucci et al cannot or should not be greater than 2, and the same would inherently or obviously be true for Marcucci et al’s M different brightness levels).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 2-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record, including Marcucci et al, supra, discloses or suggests the flashlight of claim 1 with the further limitations recited on the last nine lines of claim 2, and claims 3-12 are allowable in view of their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on allowable claim 2.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Figure 2 of Kuta et al discloses a flashlight including a second switch (120) which controls the mode of the flashlight, one or more LEDs (110), and a processor (200), wherein the processor inherently or obviously includes both control circuitry and LED driver circuitry. Note also that each of Kuta et al's modes can have M different levels which are formed during the ramping down operation disclosed in paragraph [0023] of this reference. Figure 2 of Butler et al discloses a flashlight including a second switch (note that the second switch will be inherent within user interface 26), the second switch being used to control at least two modes of the flashlight, a control circuit 46 and LED driving circuitry 54. Although Butler et al does not disclose that each of the modes supports M different levels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the above-noted teachings by Marcucci et al and Kuta et al. The same is true for figure 8 of Ding et al, i.e., this reference also discloses a flashlight with two or more modes which can be set by switches 16a, 16b, and 16c, a control circuit 28 and LED driving circuitry 34 for driving one or more light emitting diodes, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the different modes in Ding et al can support M different levels in view of the above-noted teachings by Marcucci et al and Kuta et al. None of Kuta et al, Butler et al and Ding et al is seen to disclose or suggest, however, the limitations recited on the last nine lines of claim 2, and therefore claims 2-12 are similarly allowable over these three additional references.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-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, LINCOLN DONOVAN can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 February 6, 2026