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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment, filed on January 2 of 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 11, 13-15 and 20 have been amended. Claims 2, 9 and 10 have been cancelled. No claim has been added. Claims 1, 3-8 and 11-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 11 and 20 being independent.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification have overcome the objections detailed in sections 2-4, 8 and 9 of the previous Office Action (mailed October 2, 2025).
The drawings replacement sheets were received on January 2 of 2026. Applicant’s amendment to the drawings have overcome the objections under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), as detailed in sections 5-7 of the previous Office Action (mailed October 2, 2025). Therefore, the new drawings are acceptable.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome the claim objections, and claim rejections under 35 USC 112, as detailed in sections 10-29 of the previous Office Action (mailed October 2, 2025). Therefore, the cited objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
It is noted that the newly submitted amendment to the abstract was not be provided in a separate sheet, as required by 37 CFR 1.72. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The applicant is advised that, to expedite prosecution, the amendment to the abstract has been entered; however, a new abstract on a separate sheet, including no other part of the application or other material, must be provided before the application is considered in condition for allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Section (a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1, as newly amended, defines a “rechargeable battery comprising a USB-C charging port”; however, the specification, as originally filed, fails to describe the “rechargeable battery” as including any USB connector. In fact, the “USB-C charging port” is disclosed simply as one example of the different “charging ports” used to provide recharge of the “rechargeable battery” (see paragraphs 0032 and 0041 of the originally filed description), but nowhere, within the four corners of the originally filed specification, is a “USB-C charging port” specifically disclosed as an element of applicant’s “rechargeable battery”.
Dependent claims 3-8 are rejected for their dependency on independent claim 1, as previously detailed.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the claimed invention.
Independent claim 11 defines a “touch-sensitive control” being a “light adjusting touch-sensitive control”; however, the originally filed specification fails to provide any circuitry or mechanism enabling the claimed function of adjusting any “light” (e.g., the claimed “micro-LED strip”). It appears that the applicant is attempting to define desired structural elements and features without actually disclosing the way in which such features are realized. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed the non-enabled element, that is, the “light adjusting touch-sensitive control”, as being old and well known in the art.
Dependent claims 12-19 are rejected for their dependency on non-enabled independent claim 11, as previously detailed.
Independent method claim 20 defines an “embedded light adjusting touch-sensitive control”; however, the originally filed specification fails to provide any circuitry or mechanism enabling the claimed function of adjusting any light (e.g., the claimed “LED light”). It appears that the applicant is attempting to define desired structural elements and features without actually disclosing the way in which such features are realized. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed the non-enabled element, that is, the “light adjusting touch-sensitive control”, as being old and well known in the art.
Claim Rejections Based on Prior Art
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 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.
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 11, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEIFER et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,517,068).
Regarding independent claim 11 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. discloses smart device screen perimeter lighting device 100 (as seen in Figure 1) including a bezel 108 (as seen in Figure 1) configured to be integrated into a smart device 104 (as seen in Figure 1), the bezel 108 having an embedded micro-LED strip 130 (as seen in Figure 3B); an integrated diffusion layer 122 (as seen in Figure 2) positioned over the embedded micro-LED strip 130 (as seen in Figure 2), the diffusion layer 122 being configured to distribute illumination uniformly see lines 2-6 of column 5); and a touch-sensitive control 110 (as seen in Figure 1) embedded within the bezel 108 (as seen in Figure 1), wherein the touch-sensitive control 110 is a light adjusting touch-sensitive control (see lines 47-50 of column 3).
Regarding dependent claim 12 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. further discloses the embedded micro-LED strip 130 can be controlled by a control interface of the smart device 104 (see lines 54-65 of column 5).
Regarding dependent claim 16 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. further discloses the embedded micro-LED strip 130 is positioned along a top edge (as evidenced by Figure 1), a bottom edge, or a side edge of the bezel 108.
Regarding independent method claim 20 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. implicitly discloses a method of using a smart device screen perimeter lighting device 100, the method comprising the steps of providing a smart device screen perimeter lighting device 100 (as seen in Figure 1) including of an LED light 120 (as seen in Figure 2), and a diffusion 122 (as seen in Figure 1); providing a smart device screen perimeter lighting device 100 in a detachable frame configuration 108 or an integrated bezel configuration 108 (as seen in Figure 1); attaching the detachable frame 108 to an edge of the smart device 104 or activating the integrated bezel lighting system 100 via an operating system interface of the smart device 104 (see lines 54-65 of column 5); powering the smart device screen perimeter lighting device 100 through a power source 112 integrated within the detachable frame 108 or the smart device 104 (see lines 54-65 of column 5); adjusting a brightness of the LED light 120 embedded in the detachable frame or embedded in an integrated bezel 108 using a physical control mechanism 110 on the frame 108 (as seen in Figure 1), a touch-sensitive control 110 (as seen in Figure 1) embedded in the bezel 108, or a software interface on the smart device 104 (see lines 54-65 of column 5); and utilizing the smart device screen perimeter lighting device 100 to provide uniform illumination for tasks performed on the smart device 104 (see lines 2-6 of column 5).
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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEIFER et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,517,068) in view of WANG (U.S. Pat. 5,457,745).
Regarding independent claim 1 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. discloses a smart device screen perimeter lighting device 100 (as seen in Figure 1) including a detachable frame 108 (as seen in Figure 1) configured to securely attach to an edge of a smart device 104 (as seen in Figure 1); an embedded LED light 120 (as seen in Figure 1) positioned on the detachable frame 108 (as seen in Figure 2); a diffuser panel 122 (as seen in Figure 2) positioned over the embedded LED light 120 (as seen in Figure 2), the diffuser panel 122 being configured to distribute illumination uniformly (see lines 2-6 of column 5); a fastener being a clamp (as seen in Figure 1); a battery 112 (see lines 47-50 of column 3); and a control mechanism 110 (as seen in Figure 2) located on the detachable frame 108 (as seen in Figure 2), the control mechanism 110 being configured to adjust a power and a brightness (see lines 47-50 of column 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
439
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of U.S. Pat. 6,517,068 (LEIFER et al.), simplified and annotated to clearly reference claimed structural elements and features.
LEIFER et al. fails to explicitly disclose the clamp being an adjustable clamp, and the battery 112 being a rechargeable battery with a USB-C charging port.
However, WANG teaches a detachable frame 1/2 (as seen in Figure 4) configured to securely attached to an edge of a smart device (see lines 31-35 of column 3); and a fastener 3/4 (as seen in Figure 4), such fastener 3/4 being an adjustable clamp (see lines 4-8 of column 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the known adjustable clamp 3/4 of WANG for the clamp in the patented device 100 of LEIFER et al., to obtain the predictable result of enabling the device 100 to be coupled to a plurality smart devices having different sizes and thicknesses, as taught by WANGE (see lines 31-35 of column 3) (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding the battery 112 being a rechargeable battery with a USB-C charging port, However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the use and advantages of rechargeable batteries with USB-C charging ports, specifically in electronic devices and accessories, are old and well known in the illumination art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to simply include a known rechargeable battery with a USB-C charging port, in the patented smart device screen perimeter lighting device 100 of LEIFER et al. (as previously modified by WANG), to obtain the predictable result of enabling the battery 112 in the device 100 to be conveniently recharged from any conventional USB-C source. (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding dependent claim 3 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. individually discloses, or suggests when combined with the knowledge readily available to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as previously detailed, except the fastener including a silicone-coated material.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the use and advantages of silicone coated fasteners, specifically clips and clamps, are old and well known in the illumination art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to simply include a known silicone coated clip or clamp in the patented smart device screen perimeter lighting device 100 of LEIFER et al. (as previously modified by WANG), to obtain the predictable result of enabling the apparatus to engage with a supporting surface without scratching it. (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding dependent claim 4 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. further discloses the embedded LED light 120 is positioned along a top edge of the detachable frame 108 (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding dependent claim 5 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. individually discloses, or suggests when combined with the knowledge readily available to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as previously detailed, except the embedded LED light 120 is positioned along a bottom edge of the detachable frame 108.
However, it has been long held by the courts that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to position the LED light 120 along a bottom edge of the detachable frame 108 of LEIFER et al. (as previously modified by WANG), as necessitated by the specific spatial requirements of a given application.
Regarding dependent claim 6 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. individually discloses, or suggests when combined with the knowledge readily available to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as previously detailed, except the embedded LED light 120 is positioned along a side edge of the detachable frame 108.
However, it has been long held by the courts that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to position the LED light 120 along a side edge of the detachable frame 108 of LEIFER et al. (as previously modified by WANG), as necessitated by the specific spatial requirements of a given application.
Regarding dependent claim 7 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. individually discloses, or suggests when combined with the knowledge readily available to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as previously detailed, except the embedded LED light 120 emits a color temperature between 2700K to 6500K.
However, it has long been held by the courts 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use an LED light 120 emitting a color temperature between 2700K to 6500K in the device 100 of LEIFER et al. (as previously modified by WANG), to achieve the predictable result of providing a given illumination output as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding dependent claim 8 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. further discloses the control mechanism 110 is a button 110 (as seen in Figure 1).
Claims 13-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEIFER et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,517,068).
Regarding dependent claim 13 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. individually discloses all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, further disclosing the smart device 104 is a hand-held video game device 104 (see lines 39-42 of column 3).
LEIFER et al. fails to explicitly disclose the smart device being a tablet.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the use and advantages of illumination devices, specifically in combination with tablets (e.g., hand-held computers with video screens), are old and well known in the illumination art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to simply include the patented illumination device 100 of LEIFER et al. with a Prior Art tablet, to obtain the predictable result of enabling the illumination device 100 to provide illumination for the tablet screen, as evidenced by LEIFER et al. in lines 44-45 of column 1. (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding dependent claim 14 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. individually discloses all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, further disclosing the smart device 104 is a hand-held video game device 104 (see lines 39-42 of column 3).
LEIFER et al. fails to explicitly disclose the smart device being a laptop.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the use and advantages of illumination devices, specifically in combination with laptop computers, are old and well known in the illumination art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to simply include the patented illumination device 100 of LEIFER et al. with a Prior Art laptop computer, to obtain the predictable result of enabling the illumination device 100 to provide illumination for the laptop computer screen, as evidenced by LEIFER et al. in lines 44-45 of column 1. (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding dependent claim 15 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. individually discloses all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, further disclosing the smart device 104 is a hand-held video game device 104 (see lines 39-42 of column 3).
LEIFER et al. fails to explicitly disclose the smart device being a computer.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the use and advantages of illumination devices, specifically in combination with computers, are old and well known in the illumination art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to simply include the patented illumination device 100 of LEIFER et al. with a Prior Art computer, to obtain the predictable result of enabling the illumination device 100 to provide illumination for the computer screen, as evidenced by LEIFER et al. in lines 44-45 of column 1. (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding dependent claim 19 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. individually discloses all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, except the embedded micro-LED strip 130 emits a color temperature between 2700K to 6500K.
However, it has long been held by the courts 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use an embedded micro-LED strip 130 emitting a color temperature between 2700K to 6500K, to achieve the predictable result of providing a given illumination output as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEIFER et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,517,068) in view of BOOMGAARDEN (U.S. Pat. 11,029,008).
Regarding dependent claim 17 (as best understood), LEIFER et al. individually discloses all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, except an ambient light sensor.
However, BOOMGAARDEN discloses an illumination device including a light source 14 (as seen in Figure 1) having a plurality of light emitting dioses (LED) provided on a substrate (see lines 3-10 of column 5), a diffusion layer 16 (as seen in Figure 1), control circuitry 20 (as seen in Figure 1) for adjusting power/brightness and color temperature (see lines 16-23 of column 4), and an ambient light sensor 22 (as seen in figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to combine the Prior Art ambient light sensor 22 of BOOMGAARDEN with the patented illumination device 100 of LEIFER et al., according to the known methods disclosed by BOOMGAARDEN, to yield the predictable result of enabling the illumination device 100 to respond to changes in ambient conditions (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397).
Regarding dependent claim 18 (as best understood),LEIFER et al. individually discloses, or suggests when combined with BOOMGAARDEN and the knowledge readily available to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as previously detailed, BOOMGAARDEN further disclosing the ambient light sensor 22 is configured to automatically adjust the brightness and the color temperature of the embedded micro-LED strip based on a surrounding lighting conditions (see lines 6-19 of column 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed January 2 of 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEIFER et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,517,068), the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all the features of the claimed invention, specifically an adjustable clamp, or a rechargeable battery with a USB-C charging port. The applicant further attempts to challenge the Examiner’s Official notice of the use and advantages of USB ports being old and well known in the art.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11, and independent method claim 20, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by LEIFER et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,517,068) (previously rejected as unpatentable over the cited patent), the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all the features of the claimed invention, specifically the touch-sensitive control being “light adjusting”. The applicant further argues that while the touch-sensitive control 110 of LEIFER et al. controls power to the micro-LED strip 130, is not capable of adjusting such strip 130.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-8 and 12-19, the applicant present no arguments, except stating that such claims depend directly, or indirectly, from independent claim 1 of independent claim 11, and would be allowable when/if the independent claims are allowed. Applicant’s failure to distinctly and specifically traverse such rejections, as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b), has been interpreted as an admission that the individual features added by claims 2-8 and 12-19 fail to further distinguish the subject matter defined by the independent claims over the Prior Art already made of record.
In response to applicant’s arguments that LEIFER et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,517,068), fails to disclose an adjustable clamp, the applicant is respectfully advised that such arguments have been carefully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection presented in the current Office Action (see previous sections 23 and 24).
Regarding the Examiner’s Official Notice of the use and advantages of USB ports being old and well known in the art (originally presented in Section 42 of the Office Action mailed October 2, 2025), it is noted that the applicant have failed to adequately traverse such a finding, as the presented arguments failed to specifically state why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal. See MPEP 2144.03C and 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 60 USPQ at 241. The applicant is further advised that applicant’s failure to properly traverse the cited Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice has been taken as an admission that such limitations are indeed Prior Art. See Ahlert, 165 USPQ at 420 (424 F.2d at 1091).
In response to applicant’s arguments that LEIFER et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,517,068) failed to disclose a light adjusting touch-sensitive control the applicant is respectfully advised that while the claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004).
In this case, as admitted by the applicant, the touch-sensitive control 110 of LEIFER et al. controls power to the micro-LED strip 130. Control 110, as the claim (as newly amended) is silent as to what specific type of adjustments must be affected by the claimed “control”, was considered as reasonably anticipating the claimed “light adjusting” control as an ON/OFF switch selectively provides at least two different levels of light output (i.e., two different light adjustments).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAEL NEGRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk Lee, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ISMAEL NEGRON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875