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 19 August 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-10 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-11 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent. The drawing objections set forth in the previous non-final office action mailed 20 May 2025 is overcome by Applicant’s amendments. The 112 rejections set forth in the previous non-final office action mailed 20 May 2025 is overcome by Applicant’s amendments.
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cacciabeve (US 2021/0108786 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cacciabeve discloses a reading lamp (Figs. 9-16), comprising: a flexible carrier (122 and 132, paragraph [0104]), which is deformable (at least portion 122 of said flexible carrier 122 and 132 is deformable to fit to varying sized users); two clamping components (123, 125, as shown in Figs. 9-16), installed at both opposite ends of the flexible carrier (122 and 132) respectively (as shown in Figs. 9-16); one end of each clamping component (125) is provided with a clamping gap (the structure of the clamping gap is not defined in the claims, thus, the body of 164 having an opening therein, in which 173/176 is received, and 174, and 178 all form a clamping gap arranged between 180 and 123, which contain, support, and/or connect an elastic clamp therein, as shown in Figs. 9-16), the other end (123) of the each clamping component is connected to the flexible carrier (as shown in Figs. 9-16, and as noted in paragraph [0106]); a first lighting lamp (156, or the lighting components disposed on 144 shown in Fig. 15), embedded in a middle section position of the flexible carrier (as shown in Figs. 9-16); and a second lighting lamp (190), installed on at least one of the two clamping components (as shown in Fig. 15, note while only one is shown for simplicity, both clamping components 124 comprise a second lighting lamp 190).
Regarding claim 3, Cacciabeve discloses (Figs. 9-16) each of the two clamping components (123, 125) comprises a housing (180) and a clamping element (123, 125) installed on an outer side of the housing (on a rear outer side of the housing 180, as shown in Fig. 15); each of the housings (180) is installed (via 123, 125) on an end part of the flexible carrier (122 and 132, as shown in Figs. 9-16); the second lighting lamp (190) is installed on at least one housing (as shown in Fig. 15); and an electric control assembly (130) electrically connected with the second lighting lamp (190) and the first lighting lamp (156, or the lighting components disposed on 144 shown in Fig. 15) is arranged in at least one of the housings (at least the components of 130 and the corresponding electrical connections thereto are arranged in the housing 180).
Regarding claim 4, Cacciabeve discloses (Figs. 9-16) the electric control assembly comprises a control circuit board (144), a power supply (142) and a control key (130); the power supply (142) is electrically connected with the control circuit board (144); the control circuit board (144) is electrically connected with the first lighting lamp (156, or the lighting components disposed on 144 shown in Fig. 15) and the second lighting lamp (190); and the control key (130) is installed outside the at least one of the housings (180) and is used for sending a control signal to the control circuit board (as described in paragraph [0072]. Additionally, or alternatively, the embodiment of Figs. 17-24C feature the above-cited limitations for an electric control assembly having all of the above-cited components explicitly disposed within each of the two housings, which the instant claim does not particularly recite).
Regarding claim 5, Cacciabeve discloses (Figs. 9-16) the flexible carrier is provided with a wire trough (as described in paragraph [0104]), an end of each housing near the flexible carrier is provided with a wire hole (as described in paragraph [0104]), and the wire hole is arranged against the wire trough (as described in paragraph [0104], i.e., the arrangement must be the case for the lighting components in body 124 are connected to the power assembly 132 by a wire (not shown) running from the power assembly (through wire anchors 148 and 150) through the inside of outer neck piece 162 and covered by inner neck piece 200, as described in paragraph [0104]).
Regarding claim 6, Cacciabeve discloses (Figs. 9-16) the flexible carrier is provided with a wire trough (as described in paragraph [0104]), an end of each housing near the flexible carrier is provided with a wire hole (as described in paragraph [0104]), and the wire hole is arranged against the wire trough (as described in paragraph [0104], i.e., the arrangement must be the case for the lighting components in body 124 are connected to the power assembly 132 by a wire (not shown) running from the power assembly (through wire anchors 148 and 150) through the inside of outer neck piece 162 and covered by inner neck piece 200, as described in paragraph [0104]).
Regarding claim 7, Cacciabeve discloses (Figs. 9-16) one clamping element (123, 125) and one housing (180) at a same side of the flexible carrier (as shown in Figs. 9-16) are formed as an integrated structure (e.g., as shown integrated in Figs. 9-14); each clamping element (123, 125) comprises a fixing part (164, 168) and an elastic clamping part (172, 176) which are connected (upon assembly, the components are connected, as shown in Figs. 9-14); the fixing part (164, 168) is connected with the housing (via 174) at the same side of the flexible carrier (as shown in Figs. 9-16, e.g., the side having the exploded view shown in Figs. 9-16); and the clamping gap (said gap within 164, in which 173/176 is received, and 174 and 178) is formed between the elastic clamping part (172, 176) and the housing (180) at the same side of the flexible carrier (said clamping gap within 164, 174, and/or 178 is formed between portion 172 of said elastic clamping part which extends from an opening of said clamping gap in 164, as shown in Fig. 16, and housing 180, as shown in Figs. 9-16).
Regarding claim 8, Cacciabeve discloses (Figs. 9-16) each clamping element (123, 125) and/or each housing (180) at the same side of the flexible carrier are provided with a protecting element (178) which is located in the clamping gap (as shown in Fig. 15).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cacciabeve, in view of Besley et al. (US 2021/0215326 A1, herein referred to as: Besley).
Regarding claim 2, Cacciabeve does not explicitly teach that a material of the flexible carrier is a shape memory polymer, silicone, thermoplastic polyurethane, polyvinyl chloride or nickel-titanium alloy.
Besley teaches or suggests (Fig. 1) a material of the flexible carrier (12) is a shape memory polymer, silicone, thermoplastic polyurethane, polyvinyl chloride or nickel-titanium alloy (e.g., as described in paragraph [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Cacciabeve and incorporated the teachings of a material of the flexible carrier is a shape memory polymer, silicone, thermoplastic polyurethane, polyvinyl chloride or nickel-titanium alloy, such as taught or suggested by Besley, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of providing a material capable of flexing to fit varying sizes of user, and/or provide a soft or comfortable interface when worn by the user.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cacciabeve, in view of Mishan (US 2018/0216807 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Cacciabeve does not explicitly teach that a material of each protecting element is rubber, silicone, polyvinyl chloride, thermoplastic polyurethane, sponge, foam, microfiber or leather.
Mishan teaches or suggests a material of the protecting element (115) is rubber, silicone, polyvinyl chloride, thermoplastic polyurethane, sponge, foam, microfiber or leather (paragraph [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Cacciabeve and incorporated the teachings of a material of each protecting element is rubber, silicone, polyvinyl chloride, thermoplastic polyurethane, sponge, foam, microfiber or leather, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of providing a material capable of preventing the ingress of water or debris to the housing.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cacciabeve.
Regarding claim 10, Cacciabeve does not explicitly teach, in the embodiment of Figs. 9-16, that each clamping element is provided with a first magnetic attraction element, and each housing is provided with a second magnetic attraction element for magnetic attraction with the first magnetic attraction element.
Cacciabeve alternatively teaches or suggests, in the embodiment of Figs. 17-24C, the clamping element (226) is provided with a first magnetic attraction element (250), and the housing (254) is provided with a second magnetic attraction element (252) for magnetic attraction with the first magnetic attraction element (as described in paragraph [0141]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Cacciabeve and incorporated the teachings of each clamping element is provided with a first magnetic attraction element, and each housing is provided with a second magnetic attraction element for magnetic attraction with the first magnetic attraction element, such as alternatively taught or suggested by Cacciabeve, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the marketability and/or utility of the device (i.e., by providing a simplified connection feature which is easy to use, and/or provide an embodiment by which the lights can be used separately from the flexible carrier).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cacciabeve, in view of Bullard et al. (US 2023/0354942 A1, herein referred to as: Bullard).
Regarding claim 11, Cacciabeve does not explicitly teach that the first lighting lamp is a flexible lamp strip.
Bullard teaches or suggests (Fig. 12) the first lighting lamp is a flexible lamp strip (paragraph [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Cacciabeve and incorporated the teachings of the first lighting lamp is a flexible lamp strip, such as taught or suggested by Bullard, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to yield the predictable result of reducing the complexity in manufacturing and/or assembling the device (i.e., by providing a board which is conformable to the shape of the component to which it is attached), and/or increase or improve the longevity of the device (i.e., by improving the resiliency of the device to impact damage or vibrations).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Cacciabeve failed to disclose: “...two clamping components, installed at both opposite ends of the flexible carrier respectively, one end of each clamping component is provided with a clamping gap, the other end of each clamping component is connected to the flexible carrier...,” pages 7-9 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, the “clamping gap” is not defined in relation to any other recited structure in the claims in such a way as to inhibit the interpretation presently set forth, and as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. Thus, Cacciabeve reasonably discloses the above-cited limitation, as outlined in the rejection above.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “...the clamping components in the claim 1 are configured to clamp the reading lamp itself onto an external structure in a corresponding scenario...,” page 8 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully notes that, as outlined above, no such structure is recited in the rejected claims that provides such a mechanism for the asserted feature. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Cacciabeve failed to disclose: “...a first lighting lamp, embedded in a middle section position of the flexible carrier...a second lighting lamp, installed on at least one of the two clamping components...,” page 9 of the above-cited remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, 156 is a visible light charge indicator which indicates power level of the enclosed battery, and 144 is an LED PCB for the charge indicator. Thus, 156 constitutes an embedded first light source, as the claim provides no additional structural features which define said first light source. Additionally, as noted in the disclosure of Cacciabeve, both housings are connected by a same tilt mechanism, with one being shown for simplicity. Thus, Cacciabeve discloses two clamping elements with two second lighting lamps, respectively.
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 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 Colin J Cattanach whose telephone number is (571)270-5203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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.
/COLIN J CATTANACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875