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 .
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 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hopkins et al. US 20220221115 (“Hopkins”).
Hopkins teaches:
Re 18: a work light comprising:
a body including a user interface 30 (¶21) and a battery receptacle 92 (Fig. 5: battery shown inserted into the battery receptacle; abstract; ¶25), the battery receptacle configured to receive a battery 25 (Figs. 1-2 and 5; abstract; ¶27); and
a light head 26 pivotally coupled to the body about a pivot axis (Figs. 2-3 and 5-7; ¶21), the light head including (Figs. 1-7; ¶24)
a housing 66,
a light panel positioned within the housing and configured to be operated by the user interface (Fig. 4: where 78 points to shows the panel that is housed within 66), the light panel including an edge that is in direct contact with the housing (Figs. 1-5: panel is slotted into housing), and
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) supported on the light panel (¶24: “Each light source [] may include a single LED light source or a plurality or array of LED light sources.”),
wherein a side of the light panel opposite from the plurality of LEDs defines an air gap between the light panel and the housing (Fig. 6: LEDs are in part opposite the panel and between those LEDs, the panel, and the housing there is an air gap within).
Re 20: wherein the light head does not include a heat sink (Figs. 1-4: no heat sink shown nor described in the rest of the specification).
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 1, 4-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. US 20220221115 (“Hopkins”) in view of Thakkar US 20190192953 (“Thakkar”).
Re 1: Hopkins teaches:
Claim 1: a work light comprising:
a body including a user interface 30 (¶21) and a battery receptacle 92 (Fig. 5: battery shown inserted into the battery receptacle; abstract; ¶25), the battery receptacle configured to receive a battery 25 (Figs. 1-2 and 5; abstract; ¶27); and
a light head 26 pivotally coupled to the body about a pivot axis (Figs. 2-3 and 5-7; ¶21), the light head including (Figs. 1-7; ¶24)
a housing 66,
a light panel positioned within the housing and configured to be operated by the user interface (Fig. 4: where 78 points to shows the panel that is housed within 66), and
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) supported on the light panel (¶24: “Each light source [] may include a single LED light source or a plurality or array of LED light sources.”),
wherein the light head does not include a heat sink (Figs. 1-4: no heat sink shown nor described in the rest of the specification).
Hopkins does not explicitly teach:
Claim 1: and has at least 1.5 LEDs per square inch.
Claim 4: wherein the light head has at least 2 LEDs per square inch.
Claim 5: wherein the light head has about 2.2 LEDs per square inch.
Claim 6: wherein the plurality of LEDs includes 20 LEDs.
Claim 7: wherein the light head has an output area between 3 square inches and 36 square inches.
Claim 8: wherein the output area is between 6 square inches and 18 square inches.
Thakkar teaches (¶36: “…having a uniform density 6 LEDs per inch (36 LEDs per square inch)”):
Claim 1: and has at least 1.5 LEDs per square inch.
Claim 4: wherein the light head has at least 2 LEDs per square inch.
Claim 5: wherein the light head has about 2.2 LEDs per square inch.
Claim 6: wherein the plurality of LEDs includes 20 LEDs.
Claim 7: wherein the light head has an output area between 3 square inches and 36 square inches.
Claim 8: wherein the output area is between 6 square inches and 18 square inches.
Changing the density or number of LEDs, as well as the output area of light head where light emanates from, are all known methods of adjusting the light output. For instance, increasing density or number of LEDs produces a brighter output, as Thakkar recognizes (¶24). Similarly, changing the output area either condenses or spreads the light out; changing this parameter can shift the light’s focus as a task/work light (concentrated over smaller area) versus a more diffuse light used to illuminate a larger area.
Additionally, and independently of the above, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see MPEP 2144.04. Thakkar explicitly recognizes density of LEDs and output area are result-effective variables for optimizing light output based on tasking needs. Thus, changing the density and output area is an obvious modification of the prior art. See id.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hopkins with Thakkar’s teachings in order to optimize the light for specific tasks or lighting applications.
Re 9: Hopkins and the combination of references teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Hopkins further teaches: wherein an edge of the light panel is in direct contact with the housing (Figs. 1-5: panel is slotted into housing).
Re 10: Hopkins and the combination of references teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Hopkins further teaches: wherein a side of the light panel opposite from the plurality of LEDs defines an air gap between the light panel and the housing (Fig. 7).
Re 11: Hopkins and the combination of references teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Hopkins further teaches: wherein the work light is configured to be supported by the battery 25 when the battery is received in the battery receptacle 92 (Fig. 5).
Re 12: Hopkins and the combination of references teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Hopkins further teaches: wherein the light head is pivotable (¶22) relative to the body between a stowed position (Figs. 1-5; ¶22), in which the light head is in contact with the body (Figs. 1-5; ¶22), and a deployed position (Figs. 6-7; ¶22), in which the light head extends outwardly from the body.
Re 13: Hopkins and the combination of references teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Hopkins further teaches: wherein the light head is also rotatable relative to the body about a rotation axis that is perpendicular to the pivot axis (¶22).
Re 19: Hopkins teaches the limitations of Claim 18. Hopkins does not explicitly teach, however Thakkar teaches: wherein the light head has at least 1.5 LEDs per square inch. (¶36: “…having a uniform density 6 LEDs per inch (36 LEDs per square inch)”).
Changing the density or number of LEDs, as well as the output area of light head where light emanates from, are all known methods of adjusting the light output. For instance, increasing density or number of LEDs produces a brighter output, as Thakkar recognizes (¶34). Similarly, changing the output area either condenses or spreads the light out; changing this parameter can shift the light’s focus as a task/work light (concentrated over smaller area) versus a more diffuse light used to illuminate a larger area.
Additionally, and independently of the above, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thakkar explicitly recognizes density of LEDs and output area are result-effective variables for optimizing light output based on tasking needs. Thus, changing the density and output area is an obvious modification of the prior art. See id.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hopkins with Thakkar’s teachings in order to optimize the light for specific tasks or lighting applications.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins and Thakkar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Catapult Pro https://web.archive.org/web/20220712213422/https://thrunite.com/catapult-pro/ available by at least July 12, 2022 (“Catapult Pro”).
PNG
media_image1.png
709
1888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A (Taken from Catapult Pro’s specification on its website)
Re 2-3: Hopkins and Thakkar do not explicitly teach:
Claim 2: wherein the work light has a rated brightness level, wherein the plurality of LEDs is configured to emit an actual brightness level over an entire operational period of the work light, and wherein the actual brightness level is within 5% of the rated brightness level.
Claim 3: wherein the rated brightness level is between 800 and 1200 lumens.
Catapult Pro teaches (Fig. A: see Turbo and Infinity High modes that show an output of either 961 or 909 lumens for operational periods of 90 or 120 minutes):
Claim 2: wherein the work light has a rated brightness level, wherein the plurality of LEDs is configured to emit an actual brightness level over an entire operational period of the work light, and wherein the actual brightness level is within 5% of the rated brightness level.
Claim 3: wherein the rated brightness level is between 800 and 1200 lumens.
Having a consistent rated brightness level over an entire operational period of the work light, especially one that is as bright as 800 to 1200 lumens, ensures consistent bright lighting that a user can count on. For instance, working on heavy machinery or in precarious working conditions necessitate consistent light output to not only ensure a sufficient view of what is being worked on, but to ensure the user’s safety.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hopkins and Thakkar’s combination with Catapult Pro’s teachings in order to ensure a high-fidelity light source that increases the user’s safety and ability to work.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins in view of Thakkar and Catapult Pro.
Re 15-16: Hopkins teaches:
a body including a user interface 30 (¶21) and a battery receptacle 92 (Fig. 5: battery shown inserted into the battery receptacle; abstract; ¶25), the battery receptacle configured to receive a battery 25 (Figs. 1-2 and 5; abstract; ¶27); and
a light head 26 pivotally coupled to the body, the light head including (Figs. 1-7; ¶24)
a housing 66,
a light panel positioned within the housing and configured to be operated by the user interface (Fig. 4: where 78 points to shows the panel that is housed within 66), and
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) supported on the light panel (¶24: “Each light source [] may include a single LED light source or a plurality or array of LED light sources.”).
Hopkins does not explicitly teach:
Claim 15: wherein the light head has at least 1.5 LEDs per square inch, wherein the work light has a rated brightness level, wherein the plurality of LEDs is configured to emit an actual brightness level over an entire operational period of the work light, and wherein the actual brightness level is within 5% of the rated brightness level.
Claim 16: Hopkins teaches the limitations of Claim 15. And further teaches:wherein the rated brightness level is between 800 and 1200 lumens.
Claim 15: Thakkar teaches (¶36: “…having a uniform density 6 LEDs per inch (36 LEDs per square inch)”): and has at least 1.5 LEDs per square inch.
Changing the density or number of LEDs, as well as the output area of light head where light emanates from, are all known methods of adjusting the light output. For instance, increasing density or number of LEDs produces a brighter output, as Thakkar recognizes. Similarly, changing the output area either condenses or spreads the light out; changing this parameter can shift the light’s focus as a task/work light (concentrated over smaller area) versus a more diffuse light used to illuminate a larger area.
Additionally, and independently of the above, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thakkar explicitly recognizes density of LEDs and output area are result-effective variables for optimizing light output based on tasking needs. Thus, changing the density and output area is an obvious modification of the prior art. See id.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hopkins with Thakkar’s teachings in order to optimize the light for specific tasks or lighting applications.
Hopkins and Thakkar do not explicitly teach:
Claim 15: wherein the work light has a rated brightness level, wherein the plurality of LEDs is configured to emit an actual brightness level over an entire operational period of the work light, and wherein the actual brightness level is within 5% of the rated brightness level.
Claim 16: wherein the rated brightness level is between 800 and 1200 lumens.
Catapult Pro (Fig. A: see Turbo and Infinity High modes that show an output of either 961 or 909 lumens for operational periods of 90 or 120 minutes):
Claim 15: wherein the work light has a rated brightness level, wherein the plurality of LEDs is configured to emit an actual brightness level over an entire operational period of the work light, and wherein the actual brightness level is within 5% of the rated brightness level.
Claim 16: wherein the rated brightness level is between 800 and 1200 lumens.
Having a consistent rated brightness level over an entire operational period of the work light, especially one that is as bright as 800 to 1200 lumens, ensures consistent bright lighting that a user can count on. For instance, working on heavy machinery or in precarious working conditions necessitate consistent light output to not only ensure a sufficient view of what is being worked on, but to ensure the user’s safety.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hopkins and Thakkar’s combination with Catapult Pro’s teachings in order to ensure a high-fidelity light source that increases the user’s safety and ability to work.
Re 17: wherein a side of the light panel opposite from the plurality of LEDs defines an air gap between the light panel and the housing (Fig. 6: LEDs are in part opposite the panel and between those LEDs and the panel is an air gap).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins and Thakkar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sharrah US 20130258650 (“Sharrah”).
Hopkins teaches further comprising: a circuit board positioned within the body to control operation of the work light (Fig. 12; ¶27).
Hopkins and Thakkar do not explicitly disclose and a heat sink coupled to the circuit board.
Sharrah teaches (¶57) and a heat sink 304 coupled to the circuit board 302.
Including a heat sink on the circuit board ensures critical electronic components are less likely to fail due to overheating. In turn, the device’s expected lifetime is increased.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hopkins and Thakkar’s combination with Sharrah’s teachings in order to extend the operational lifetime of the device.
Conclusion
Relevant prior art considered: US 20120033415 teaching a portable work light having a pivotable head with a heat sink thereon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD J SUFLETA II whose telephone number is (571)272-4279. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM EDT/EST.
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.
GERALD J. SUFLETA II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/GERALD J SUFLETA II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875