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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment after final submitted on 26 February 2026 has been entered. Currently Claims 1, 3-15, 17 are pending 19-21.
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.
The applicant is respectfully advised that in examining a pending application, the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably convey. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MA (CN208397773U). For purposes of the rejection the Examiner will cite sections of the translated version submitted along with this action.
Regarding Claim 21, MA discloses in Figures 1-2 and 10, a portable tower comprising: a head assembly (lighting mechanism 100); a pole section including a pole base (portion of assembly 520 at bottom) and a telescoping section 520 (telescopic assembly Para 0062), the telescoping section extending between the pole base and the head assembly and movable between a retracted position and an extended position; a plurality of legs (support rods 512) mounted to the pole section, each of the plurality of legs 512 movable between a stowed position and a deployed position (Para 0064); and a battery pack 400 removably attached to the pole base, the battery pack 400 forming an exterior surface of the portable tower, and wherein the battery pack is a first battery pack, and further comprising a second battery pack, and wherein the first and second battery packs are disposed on opposed lateral sides of the pole base (power supply mechanism 400 contains two battery compartments 420 on either side of the base of pole section that is easy to install and remove, Para 0067 See Figures 1 and 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 applicant is respectfully advised that in examining a pending application, the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably convey. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Claims 1, 7, 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proeber (U.S. Patent No. 11,143,389) in view of Zhao (CN 202927503U). For purposes of the rejection the Examiner will cite sections of the translated version submitted along with this action.
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Proeber discloses in Figure 32, a portable tower 10 comprising: a head assembly (light assembly 22) ;a pole section (including base 46 and section 18) including a telescoping section 18 movable between a retracted position and an extended position, the telescoping section mounted to the head assembly 22; a plurality of legs 64 mounted to the pole section (at base of pole), each of the plurality of legs 6+4 movable between a stowed position and a deployed position; and a solar panel (the power system may include a solar panel not shown Col 14, lines 30-35) wherein the portable tower is movable between a fully collapsed and a fully deployed position, and wherein in the fully collapsed position the telescoping section of the pole section is in the retracted position, the plurality of legs are each in the stowed position (as shown in Figures 31-32).
Regarding Claims 1, 7 and 17, Prober does not disclose a solar panel assembly including a plurality of foldable solar sections, the solar panel assembly movable between a folded position wherein the foldable solar sections are stacked upon each other and an unfolded position wherein the foldable solar sections are adjacent to each other; wherein the solar panel assembly folds out from the folded position to the unfolded position while at least one of the foldable solar sections remains pivotably attached to the portable tower wherein the portable tower is movable between a fully collapsed and a fully deployed position, and the solar panel assembly is in the folded position wherein at least one of the foldable solar sections is stacked between two other of the foldable solar sections in the folded position.
Zhao discloses in Figures 1-2, a portable light system with a solar panel assembly including a plurality of foldable solar sections 4, the solar panel assembly movable between a folded position wherein the foldable solar sections are stacked upon each other and an unfolded position wherein the foldable solar sections are adjacent to each other; wherein the solar panel assembly folds out from the folded position to the unfolded position while at least one of the foldable solar sections remains pivotably attached to the portable tower wherein the portable tower is movable between a fully collapsed and a fully deployed position, and the solar panel assembly is in the folded position (Para 0019-0020). This provides a compact storage of the solar panels that can be stored within the base of the portable light so that the overall assembly is easy to transport in a compact manner and easy assemble and dissemble for transport wherein at least one of the foldable solar sections 4 is stacked between two other of the foldable solar sections in the folded position. (See Abstract and Figures 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing it would have been obvious to incorporate the folded solar panel assembly of Zhao in the portable tower or Proeber so that the portable light tower i the overall assembly is easy to transport in a compact manner and easy assemble and dissemble for transport
Regarding Claim 13, Proeber discloses the portable tower of claim 7, wherein in the fully collapsed position the plurality of legs 64 each extend in a direction that is parallel to an axis of the pole section (Figure 31).
Regarding Claim 14, Proeber discloses in Figures 31-32 each of the plurality of legs 64 are rotatable about a hinge mounted to the pole section (each leg assembly slides and pivots or hinges within the channel section 50 formed in base 46); a leg support 190 connects between each leg 64 and the pole section and the leg support 190 is configured to lock each leg 64 at a desired rotation from the pole section in the deployed position (using lock mechanism 194 Col 6, lines 10-25).
Claim 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proeber (U.S. Patent No. 11,143,389) and Zhao (CN202927503U) as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Harvey (U.S. Patent No. 10,378,739).
Regarding Claim 3, Proeber discloses in Figure 10 a portable light tower comprising a battery pack 180 removably attached to the pole section and forming an exterior surface of the portable tower, the battery pack configured to store power generated by the solar panel assembly and provide power to a component mounted on the head assembly (Col 18, lines 5-11).
Proeber does not disclose the battery pack 180 forming an exterior surface of the portable tower (instead is located within the base 4014)
Harvey discloses in Figures 1-3 and 10, a portable light tower (stand light 10) having a battery pack 274 removably attached to the pole section and forming an exterior surface of the portable tower 10, the battery pack 274 configured to store power and provide power to a light head 26 of the tower 10 (Col 9, lines 35-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the battery pack 180 form an external surface or rather be exposed from the outside of the tower of Proeber. All the claimed elements in Proeber and Harvey were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the detachable exposed battery pack as claimed with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable result having a detachable rechargeable and replaceable battery pack that can be easily replaced and recharged without having to open a compartment door, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 4, Proeber discloses in Figure 10-11, the head portion being a lamp (light assembly 22 with multiple LED light pods 420 Col 13, lines 25-35)
Regarding Claims 5-6, Proeber discloses in Figures 46-56, a user interface 4026 configured to allow a user to control operation of the component mounted on the head assembly wherein the user interface is configured to display information relating to at least one of energy storage of the battery and power generation of the solar panel assembly (contros operation of the light as well as monitors power usage Col 17, lines 50-65).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks and claims, filed 26 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Proeber (U.S. Patent No. 11,143,389), Zhao (CN202927503U) and MA (CN208397773U).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
Claim 9 -12 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The art does not teach or suggest alone or combination the foldable solar panels fold or have a hinge that are parallel to the direction of a length greater than the width of the solar section of the foldable solar sections or that the solar panels are mounted to respective one of the plurality of legs of the pole sections of the portable tower.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J MAY whose telephone number is (571)272-5919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-3:30pm.
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.
/ROBERT J MAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875