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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention III, drawn to Claims 15-20 in the reply filed on 7/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/27/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 7 the words and reference numbers within the dotted box in the lower left side of the figure defining the various steps of the intensity loop sub-process 710 have been rendered with a “fuzzy” and small appearance which makes them difficult to discern. For example, see the rendering of Fig. 7 in this application’s corresponding US pre-grant publication, US 2025/0203733. The same issue applies to the various words “yes” and “no” on either side of the various steps of the illustrated method, as these words are also rendered with the same “fuzzy” appearance. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “the second voltage applied to the LED is adjusted according to predetermined set of voltage values and…” in lines 8-9 of the claim is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --the second voltage applied to the LED is adjusted according to a predetermined set of voltage values, and…-- to add the missing word and comma. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the predetermined set of voltages comprises an additional voltage corresponding to an off condition of the LED” in lines 1-2 of the claim. However, independent Claim 15 recites “a method for controlling a light-emitting diode (LED) disposed upon a rotary tool” in lines 1-2 of the claim, and further recites the method steps “applying a second voltage to the LED in response to engagement of a switch; and adjusting the second voltage in response to continued engagement of the switch, wherein the second voltage applied to the LED is adjusted according to predetermined set of voltage values” in lines 5-9 of the claim. The Examiner notes that in general, all LEDs are capable of being powered off, which corresponds to a voltage of zero. Accordingly, the predetermined set of voltage values defined in Claim 15 must already include a voltage of zero, since all LEDs can be turned off. Therefore, Claim 19 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 15.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ely et al. (US 2016/0354889, hereinafter “Ely”).
Regarding claim 15, Ely discloses a method for controlling a light-emitting diode (LED) disposed upon a rotary tool (a method 150 for controlling a light unit 60 of a power tool 10, the lighting unit comprising two or more COB LEDs formed as arcs that cooperate to surround output spindle 50 of the power tool; see Figs. 1-5, 16; para. [0026]-[0041], [0056]-[0062], [0064]-[0066]), the method comprising applying a first voltage to a control circuit in response to the engagement of an electric motor of the rotary tool (when a Forward/Neutral/Reverse (F/N/R) switch 40 is in a forward or reverse position and not in neutral, controller 70 will activate a desired headlight output setting when a trigger 36 is depressed, and when the F/N/R switch is in the neutral position, pulling the trigger will allow a light output mode of the LEDs of the light unit 60 to be changed; see Figs. 1-5, 16; para. [0003], [0030], [0057]-[0061]); applying a second voltage to the LED in response to engagement of a switch (pulling the trigger 36 applies a second voltage to the LEDs of the light unit 60 to change a light output mode thereof, including cycling between different brightness modes; see Figs. 1-5, 16; para. [0003], [0057], [0059]-[0062]); and adjusting the second voltage in response to continued engagement of the switch, wherein the second voltage applied to the LED is adjusted according to a predetermined set of voltage values (continued activation of the switch 36 causes the controller 70 to cycle through various light output modes corresponding to a set of voltage values in succession, from a full brightness mode to a 66% brightness mode, then a 33% brightness mode, and off; see Fig. 16; para. [0057], [0060]-[0062]), and the adjustment to the second voltage cycles through the predetermined set of voltage values at regular intervals based upon a timer (if the switch 36 is pulled multiple times in quick succession in a short period of time by the user (e.g., twice within one second) as indicated at step 160, the controller 70 toggles through various light output modes in succession; see Fig. 16; par. [0062]).
Regarding claim 16, Ely discloses wherein one of the predetermined set of voltage values comprises a value corresponding to maximum illumination of the LED (one of the voltage values corresponding to various brightness settings includes emitting light at full brightness; see para. [0060]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 20, Ely discloses wherein the regular intervals are a specified time within a range of 1-5 seconds (if the switch 36 is tapped twice within one second as indicated at step 160, the controller 70 toggles through the various light output modes in succession; see Fig. 16; par. [0062]).
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 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ely (US 2016/0354889). The teachings of Ely have been discussed above.
Regarding claim 17, Ely teaches wherein the predetermined set of voltage values comprises values corresponding to increments of luminance compared to maximum illumination (continued activation of the switch 36 causes the controller 70 to cycle through various light output modes corresponding to a set of voltage values in succession, from a full brightness mode to a 66% brightness mode, then a 33% brightness mode, and off; see Fig. 16; para. [0060]-[0062]).
However, the teachings of Ely fail to specifically disclose the predetermined set of voltage values are values corresponding to 20% increments of luminance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ely by setting the predetermined set of voltage values to values corresponding to 20% increments of luminance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, since Ely already teaches the predetermined set of voltage values includes values corresponding to 33% increments of luminance, modifying the known method of Ely by setting the predetermined set of voltage values to values corresponding to 20% increments of luminance would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the particular design requirements of a given application, in order to provide more brightness modes to the user.
However, regarding claim 18, the teachings of Ely fail to specifically disclose wherein the predetermined set of voltages comprises a set of voltages corresponding to maximum luminance, 80% luminance, 60% luminance, 40% luminance, and 20% luminance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ely by setting the predetermined set of voltage values to comprise a set of voltage values corresponding to maximum luminance, 80% luminance, 60% luminance, 40% luminance, and 20% luminance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, since Ely already teaches the predetermined set of voltage values includes values corresponding to 33% increments of luminance, modifying the known method of Ely by setting the predetermined set of voltage values to comprise a set of voltage values corresponding to maximum luminance, 80% luminance, 60% luminance, 40% luminance, and 20% luminance (i.e., values corresponding to 20% increments of luminance) would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the particular design requirements of a given application, in order to provide more brightness modes to the user.
Regarding claim 19, Ely teaches wherein the predetermined set of voltages comprises an additional voltage corresponding to an off condition of the LED (pulling the switch 36 another time can be used to turn the LEDs of the light unit 60 off, which corresponds to a voltage of zero; see Fig. 16; para. [0003], [0057], [0060]-[0062]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pei (US 12,036,656), Friedman et al. (US 11,835,217), Kelly (US 2021/0122017), Kynast et al. (US 2015/0283685), Suda et al. (US 8,981,680), and Sterling et al. (US 2013/0063051) all disclose a method for controlling an LED disposed upon a rotary tool, with Pei, Kelly, Suda, and Sterling each disclosing applying a second voltage to the LED in response to engagement of a switch, and adjusting the second voltage in response to continued engagement of the switch according to a predetermined set of voltage values at regular intervals based on a timer. Additionally, Van Doorn (US 8,816,602) discloses a method for controlling an LED including adjusting a voltage to the LED in response to engagement of a switch, and adjusting the second voltage in response to continued engagement of the switch according to a predetermined set of voltage values.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM N HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00AM- 5:00PM EST, Alternate Fridays.
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.
/WILLIAM N HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights