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 4/28/2026 has been entered. No claims have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 21-40 are still pending in this application, with claims 21, 33, and 39 being independent.
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 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selevan et al. (US 2016/0186971, hereinafter “Selevan”) in view of Bayat et al. (US 2007/0159815, hereinafter “Bayat”).
Regarding claim 21, Selevan teaches a lighting device (flare 10; see Figs. 1-8; para. [0054]-[0064], [0069]-[0079]) comprising a top housing (top wall 12 defines a top housing structure; see Figs. 1-6; para. [0054], [0056], [0059]-[0064], [0069], [0073]-[0075]); a bottom housing (bottom wall 14 defines a bottom housing structure; see Figs. 1-5, 7; para. [0054], [0056]); a lens arranged between the top housing and the bottom housing, the lens including a plurality of side surfaces that extend between the top housing and the bottom housing to form a perimeter of the lens (side wall 16 is translucent to serve as a lens structure through which light from side-emitting LEDs, the side wall extending between the top housing 12 and the bottom housing 14; see Figs. 1-6, 8; para. [0054]-[0055], [0059], [0071], [0073]); a plurality of lighting elements configured to direct an emission of light out of the plurality of side surfaces (a plurality of side-emitting LEDs are disposed inside the lighting device 10 to emit light through side walls defined by the lens 16 around a perimeter of the lighting device 10; see Fig. 8; para. [0054]-[0055], [0059], [0071], [0073]); and a button set arranged between the lens and the top housing, the button set including a plurality of buttons (a control button 18 (also referred to as a pi button or π button) and a power button 20 project upwards from the top housing 12 to be actuated by a user; see Figs. 1-6; para. [0056], [0059], [0061], [0064], [0066], [0069], [0073], [0075]).
However, the teachings of Selevan fail to specifically disclose the top housing having a plurality of cover openings, the plurality of buttons of the button set are part of a single button pad, and the plurality of buttons extend through the plurality of cover openings.
Bayat teaches a lighting device (portable lighting device 10; see Figs. 1-8D; para. [0034]-[0042], [0096]-[0100]) comprising a top housing having a plurality of cover openings (first elongated shell 422 defines a top housing and includes first 485 and second 487 openings; see Figs. 1-2, 7; para. [0096]-[0097], [0099]-[0100]); a bottom housing (second elongated shell 424 define a bottom housing; see Figs. 1-2, 7; para. [0096]-[0097], [0099]-[0100]); a lens arranged between the top housing and the bottom housing (side lens 428; see Figs. 1-2, 7; para. [0098]-[0099]); a plurality of lighting elements configured to direct an emission of light out of the lens (an illumination module or light emitting assembly 430 which comprises a plurality of LEDs arranged in first arrays 192 and second arrays 202, individual LEDs inside hemispherical domes 550; see Figs. 1-8D; para. [0098]-[0102], [0104]-[0107], [0111], [0116]); and a button pad arranged between the lens and the top housing, the button pad including a plurality of buttons that extend through the plurality of cover openings (a flexible sealing bezel 502 defines a button pad having first and second raised portions 484 and 486 which respectively cover push buttons 504 and 506 of first 222 and second 232 on/off switches, the first and second raised portions linked together by a link 482 to form the button pad structure and extending through the corresponding first opening 485 and second opening 487, respectively; see Figs. 7-8B, 8D; para. [0100], [0106], [0109], [0118]).
Therefore, in view of Bayat, 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 lighting device of Selevan by providing the top housing with a plurality of cover openings, connecting the plurality of buttons as a single button pad, and extending the plurality of buttons through the plurality of cover openings, since it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) and MPEP 2143. One would have been motivated to modify the known lighting device of Selevan by providing the top housing with a plurality of cover openings and extending the plurality of buttons through the plurality of cover openings, as taught by Bayat, since a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are two ways to provide button switches in a surface of a lighting device, either on the surface itself or extending/projecting through openings in the surface, and therefore merely substituting one for the other 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 achieve the predictable result of providing an alternative form of button switches without altering their functionality. Additionally, one would have been motivated to modify the known lighting device of Selevan by connecting the plurality of buttons as a single button pad, as taught by Bayat, in order to provide a simpler button structure having fewer separate components.
Regarding claim 28, Bayat further teaches wherein the button pad includes a main body that is received in the top cover and includes the plurality of buttons (the first and second raised portions 484 and 486 of the button pad are received in the corresponding cover openings 485 and 487 of the top housing 422; see Figs. 7-8B, 8D; para. [0100], [0106], [0109], [0118]); and a rim that surrounds the main body and is secured between the top cover and the lens (the remainder of the flexible bezel 502 surrounding the main body portions 484 and 486 defines a rim structure; see Figs. 7-8A, 8D; para. [0100], [0106], [0109], [0118]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-27 and 29-32 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.
Claims 33-40 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22, the claim is considered to recite allowable subject matter for the same reasons previously discussed in Section 21 on pgs. 9-10 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 8/26/2025 and maintained in Section 12 on pg. 6 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 1/30/2026.
Claims 23-27 depend on Claim 22.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is considered to recite allowable subject matter for the same reasons previously discussed in Section 23 on pg. 10 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 8/26/2025 and maintained in Section 14 on pg. 6 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 1/30/2026.
Claim 30 depends on Claim 29.
Regarding claim 31, the claim is considered to recite allowable subject matter for the same reasons previously discussed in Section 25 on pgs. 10-11 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 8/26/2025 and maintained in Section 16 on pg. 7 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 1/30/2026.
Claim 32 depends on Claim 31.
Regarding claim 33, the claim is allowable for the same reasons previously discussed in Section 27 on pgs. 11-12 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 8/26/2025 and maintained in Section 18 on pg. 7 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 1/30/2026.
Claims 34-38 depend on Claim 33.
Regarding claim 39, the claim is allowable for the same reasons discussed above with regards to Claim 33.
Claim 40 depends on Claim 39.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument with regards to Selevan (US 2022/0325879) and Bayat (US 2007/0159815) to the rejection of Claim 21 that “the Office’s stated rationale that the proposed modification would provide “a simpler button structure having fewer separate components” is factually incorrect” because “The proposed modification would actually require adding multiple new components to Selevan’s device, including openings in the top wall, where none currently exist, a switch bracket to enclose and align the switches, and a flexible sealing bezel with raised portions and a connecting link to seal against environmental intrusion” and therefore “increase both the number of separate components and the structural complexity of Selevan’s device” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 7), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant's argument that “The proposed modification would actually require adding multiple new components to Selevan’s device, including openings in the top wall, where none currently exist, a switch bracket to enclose and align the switches, and a flexible sealing bezel with raised portions and a connecting link to seal against environmental intrusion” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 7), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, Applicant appears to be mixing up the two separate rationales provided by the Examiner for modifying Selevan in view of Bayat by arguing that the Examiner indicated that both proposed modifications would provide a simpler structure, when the Examiner never said this at all. Rather, as previously explained in the rejection of Claim 21 in Section 7 on pgs. 3-5 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 1/30/2026, with the obviousness statement/rationale appearing on pg. 5, and repeated in the rejection above, the Examiner provided two separate rationales, first for why it would have been obvious to modify the device of Selevan by providing the top housing with a plurality of cover openings and extending the plurality of buttons through the plurality of cover openings, and a separate rationale for why it would have been obvious to modify the device of Selevan by connecting the plurality of buttons as a single button pad. The Examiner never stated in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 1/30/2026 that modifying the device of Selevan by providing the top housing with a plurality of cover openings and extending the plurality of buttons through the plurality of cover openings would result in a simpler button structure having fewer separate components. Rather, this rationale of a simpler button structure having fewer separate components was presented by the Examiner solely with regards to the separate modification of modifying Selevan by connecting the plurality of buttons as a single button pad.
As explained in the rejection of Claim 21, one would have been motivated to modify the known lighting device of Selevan by connecting the plurality of buttons as a single button pad, as taught by Bayat, in order to provide a simpler button structure having fewer separate components. This is modification clearly results in a simpler button structure having fewer separate components because in general, combining a plurality of separate elements into a single integrally connected element by default results in fewer elements.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “Moreover, for the sake of argument only, the Office provides no support to establish that there are just two ways to provide buttons in Selevan’s design, a mischaracterization and oversimplification of the state of the art” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 7), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In this case, the contrary to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner never said that there are “just” two ways to provide buttons in Selevan’s design in the rejection of Claim 21 in Section 7 on pgs. 3-5 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 1/30/2026. Rather, the Examiner stated in the conclusion of obviousness that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are two ways to provide button switches in a surface of a lighting device, either on the surface itself or extending/projecting through openings in the surface. Additionally, contrary to Applicant’s argument, in the rejection of Claim 21, the Examiner already provided support for this position that two different types of buttons exist, by citing the primary reference Selevan which teaches one type of push-button and the secondary reference Bayat which teaches a second type of push-button. Accordingly, the Examiner’s statement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are two ways to provide button switches in a surface of a lighting device, either on the surface itself or extending/projecting through openings in the surface is not a mere conclusory statement which is unsupported by the state of the art as this statement is supported directly by the teachings of Selevan and Bayat cited within the rejection of Claim 21. No further explanation is required.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “the proposed changes are not a “simple substitution,” but instead a substantial reconstruction of Selevan’s flare that requires modification and addition of new structures that do not exist in Selevan”, and that “Such substantial reconstruction means that there is no motivation to modify Selevan like the Office suggests”, citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959), because “To incorporate Bayat’s button pad structure into Selevan would require: (1) redesigning the top wall to create openings where none currently exist; (2) adding a switch bracket to enclose and align the switches (see Bayat, ¶ [0106]); and (3) adding a flexible sealing bezel with raised portions and a link connecting them (see id.)”, and therefore “This extensive reconstruction goes far beyond swapping one component for a functionally equivalent component, and instead requires a substantial reconstruction and redesign of Selevan as well as a change in the basic principle under which Selevan’s integrated top wall and button construction was designed to operate” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pgs. 7-8), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant's argument that “To incorporate Bayat’s button pad structure into Selevan would require: (1) redesigning the top wall to create openings where none currently exist; (2) adding a switch bracket to enclose and align the switches (see Bayat, ¶ [0106]); and (3) adding a flexible sealing bezel with raised portions and a link connecting them (see id.)” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 8), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, Applicant appears to be mixing up the two separate rationales provided by the Examiner for modifying Selevan in view of Bayat by arguing that the Examiner indicated that both proposed modifications are a simple substitution of one known element for another, when the Examiner never said this at all. Rather, as discussed above, the first rationale provided in the rejection of Claim 21 is with respect to why it would have been obvious to modify the device of Selevan by providing the top housing with a plurality of cover openings and extending the plurality of buttons through the plurality of cover openings, and it is this rationale only which was indicated as involving a simple substitution of one type of pushbutton switch for another type of pushbutton switch.
Here, the proposed modification of Selevan in view of the teachings of Bayat would not require the bodily incorporation of any structural components of Bayat directly into Selevan’s structure at all. Instead, since the proposed modification of Selevan in view of Bayat is to provide the top housing with a plurality of cover openings and extending the plurality of buttons through the plurality of cover openings, the only modification to Selevan’s device required to achieve this would be to provide openings in the top wall for the buttons to extend through and nothing else whatsoever. Such a change would not require any major redesign of Selevan at all as Selevan’s buttons would retain both their location in the top housing/wall, and their entire functionality/capability of being pushable to activate a function of the lighting device, completely unchanged. Therefore, the proposed modification would not alter the principle of operation of Selevan in any way whatsoever, and is therefore in accordance with MPEP 2143.01(VI).
Further, regarding the second modification presented in the rejection of Claim 21 that it would have been obvious to modify the device of Selevan by connecting the plurality of buttons as a single button pad, as taught by Bayat, this proposed modification would also not require the direct bodily incorporation of any specific structure from Bayat in order to be achieved. Since Bayat teaches that it is known to provide a button pad that includes a plurality of buttons that extend through the plurality of cover openings, in the form of a flexible sealing bezel 502 having first and second raised portions 484 and 486 which respectively cover push buttons 504 and 506 of first and second on/off switches 222 and 232, the first and second raised portions being integrally connected to each other by a link 482 to form the single button pad structure and extending through the corresponding first opening 485 and second opening 487, respectively (see Figs. 7-8B, 8D; para. [0100], [0106], [0109], [0118]), Bayat thus provides an example of a plurality of buttons being combined into a single button web within the device housing and projecting through openings in that housing.
Accordingly, as stated in the rejection of Claim 21, it would have been obvious to modify the lighting device of Selevan by connecting the plurality of buttons as a single button pad, as taught by Bayat, in order to provide a simpler button structure having fewer separate components. Modifying Selevan in order to achieve this structure does not require the direct bodily incorporation of the identical button web structure of Bayat in order to be achieved, however, even if this were required, it would still not alter the principle of operation of Selevan’s button switches 18 and 20 as they would still maintain their intended functionality of serving as button switches designed to be pressed in order to activate particular functions of the lighting device.
Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s argument that “the present case is directly analogous to Ratti because, in both cases, the proposed modification would alter the fundamental principle under which the prior art reference was designed to operate” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 8), none of the two separate modifications presented in the rejection of Claim 21 would alter Selevan’s principle of operation in any way, and therefore the rejection of Claim 21 is not analogous to Ratti at all and is in accordance with MPEP 2143.01(VI).
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “even if Bayat were combined with Selevan, the combination would fail to teach a button pad “arranged between the lens and the top housing” as required by claim 21 because “in Bayat’s actual structure, the flexible sealing bezel 502 is not positioned between the side lens 428 and the top housing”, and that “The only place such teaching occurs is in Applicants’ own claim. To that end, the Office seems to be using the present claim as a template by which to modify the cited art for no other reason than to arrive at the claimed subject matter” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 9), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, the primary reference Selevan teaches the lighting device 10 comprises a top housing in the form of top wall 12 (see Figs. 1-6; para. [0054], [0056], [0059]-[0064], [0069], [0073]-[0075]); a bottom housing in the form of bottom wall 14 (see Figs. 1-5, 7; para. [0054], [0056]); a lens in the form of a translucent side wall 16 arranged between the top housing 12 and the bottom housing 14 and including a plurality of side surfaces that extend between the top housing and the bottom housing to form a perimeter of the lens (side wall 16 is translucent to serve as a lens structure through which light from side-emitting LEDs, the side wall extending between the top housing 12 and the bottom housing 14; see Figs. 1-6, 8; para. [0054]-[0055], [0059], [0071], [0073]); and a button set arranged between the lens and the top housing, the button set including a plurality of buttons (a control button 18 (also referred to as a pi button or π button) and a power button 20 project upwards from the top housing 12 to be actuated by a user; see Figs. 1-6; para. [0056], [0059], [0061], [0064], [0066], [0069], [0073], [0075]). Accordingly, Selevan teaches the buttons are arranged between the lens 16 and the top housing 12, in a manner very similar to the illustration shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1.
Therefore, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is not and cannot be based on improper hindsight reasoning in any way whatsoever because the specific limitation of Claim 21 which Applicant argues is only present in the Prior Art via an improper use of hindsight reasoning, “a button pad arranged between the lens and the top housing” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 9), is not the subject of any of the proposed modifications of Selevan, since Selevan already teaches this feature and therefore does not need to be modified to provide this limitation. Accordingly, there is no need for Bayat to teach or even suggest this feature in order to reject Claim 21 because the primary reference Selevan already teaches it.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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