Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/177,178

PURSE WITH ADJUSTABLE LIGHTED INTERIOR

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 11, 2025
Examiner
MACCHIAROLO, LEAH SIMONE
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
343 granted / 554 resolved
-6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
8 currently pending
Career history
562
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§102
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
§112
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 554 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, the comma “,” at the end of line 2 should be replaced with a semi-colon “;”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 3, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. With respect to claim 3, the term “…newly constructed...” is unclear. The Examiner has turned to the specification for clarification. Looking specifically at paragraphs [0024 and 0025], it implied the disclosed invention can be either included in a new purse for sale or retrofitted into an existing purse. For the purposes of examination, it is unclear how to apply the term “newly constructed” to the claim limitations. Thus, “…which is newly constructed with one or more electroluminescent light panels” will be understood as “…wherein the electroluminescent light panel comprises one or more electroluminescent light panels.” Regarding claim 8, “fabric plastic covering” is unclear. For the purposes of examination, “fabric plastic covering” is understood as “flexible transparent covering layer”. Regarding claim 17, this claim is unclear. First, it is unclear if it is dependent on the correct claim since it mimics limitations found in claim 8. Second the claim states, “…which is adapted to be situated beneath a transparent fabric plastic covering.” This is unclear as it has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be understood in line with claim 8—“…the lighted netting insert of claim 15, further includes a transparent plastic covering.” 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. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Design Boom: These bags light up when you open to help you find what you need at night” (https://www.designboom.com/technology/fabrikk-bags-light-led-fiber-optic-illuminating-fabric-01-23-2019/ ; publication date 23 JAN 2019; hereinafter ‘Design Boom’) and further in view of Maderic (US 2021/0388979; hereinafter ‘Maderic’). Regarding claim 1, Design Boom discloses a purse having an interior light source comprising: an on-off switch comprising a manual switch or via a phone app (in pdf of the article; see at least Citation 1), a battery power pack internal to the purse consisting of either one or more disposable cells or a single repeatedly rechargeable cell (also at Citation 1); and a light panel located on the first surface of the purse interior, wherein the on-off switch, the battery power pack, and the light source are each electrically coupled together with one or more wires each independently located in the purse interior (as understood at Citation 1). Design Boom teaches the light panel is an LED fiber optic panel; at the same time, Design Boom does not specifically disclose an electroluminescent panel. Maderic teaches clothing and other soft goods (see at least paragraphs [0007 and 0124]) with an illuminated panel which could be EL, fiber optics, or more (see at least the abstract and paragraph [0107]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a designer having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace Design Boom’s LED fiber optic panel with Maderic’s electroluminescent light panel located on the first surface of Design Boom’s purse interior. One would have been motivated to do so as Maderic teaches the equivalence between the fiber optic panel and the electroluminescent panel based on the desired color generation needs (see at least paragraph [0107]). Regarding claim 2, Design Boom, as modified by Maderic, discloses the purse of claim 1 wherein the purse comprises a clutch, a tote, a handbag, a shoulder bag, or a makeup bag (as seen in Design Boom’s photos). Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Design Boom discloses the purse of claim 1, which is newly constructed with one or more electroluminescent light panels (understood as “wherein the electroluminescent light panel comprises one or more electroluminescent light panels”, see at least citation 1 and the associated figures). Regarding claim 4, the applicant is advised that it has been held by the courts that the mere fact that a given structure is integral does not preclude its consisting of various elements, and that constructing a formerly integral structure in various portions involves only routine skill in the art. In this case, Design Boom shows an integrally formed EL panel; however, it would have been obvious to a designer having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make Design Boom’s panel as a retrofitted device. One would be motivated to do so because it would allow the device to be retrofit into one’s favorite purse whether already owned or newly purchased. Regarding 5, Design Boom discloses the purse of claim 1 wherein the electroluminescent light panel is located along a bottom of the purse interior, one or both sides of the purse interior liner, or a combination thereof (as seen in the figures). Regarding claim 6, Design Boom, as modified by Maderic, discloses the purse of claim 1 having one or more programmable EL materials (as modified above) and a battery pack (citation 1). Design Boom, as modified by Maderic, dose not specifically disclose an inverter battery and inverter. It would have been obvious to a designer having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try an inverter battery and inverter in combination with Design Boom’s one or more programmable electroluminescent materials. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a rechargeable means to power the light. Regarding claim 7, Design Boom, as modified by Maderic, discloses the purse of claim 1 wherein the electroluminescent light panel is flexible (both Design Boom and Maderic teach flexible panels). Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Design Boom discloses the claimed invention as indicated above. Whilst one having ordinary skill in the art would recognized the benefit of a plastic coating, Design Boom doesn’t specifically disclose the inclusion thereof. Maderic teaches a plastic film encasing the electroluminescent panel (see at least [0113]). It would have been obvious to a designer having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Maderic’s transparent fabric plastic covering. One would have been motivated to do so to provide extra protection to the panel and it’s associated circuit. Regarding claims 9-12, Design Boom discloses the claimed invention as indicated above. Design Boom also discloses a variety of colors of light. Maderic teaches the light panels which produce a variety of colors or patterns (see at least the abstract or at least paragraph [0005]). It would have been obvious to a designer having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Design Boom’s, as modified by Maderic, light panels consist of a plurality of soft white lights; a plurality of multi-colored lights; cycling through a plurality of multi-colored lights, one color at a time; and/or illuminating in a wave pattern from left to right, top to bottom, side to side or combinations thereof. One would have been motivated to do so based on the abstract of Maderic. Regarding claims 13 and 14, Design Boom discloses the claimed invention as indicated above. Design Boom further teaches an automatically turns the light on when the purse is open; however, Design Boom doesn’t specify circuitry to make this possible. Maderic teaches a motion sensor and an auto-off feature (as disclosed in at least paragraphs [0055-0087]. It would have been obvious to a designer having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to equip Design Boom’s system with a motion sensor and set to turn off after a preset duration, as taught by Maderic. One would have been motivated to do so to allow for the user to conserve battery power. Regarding claim 15, Design Boom discloses a lighted netting insert for a new or existing purse comprising: an on-off switch comprising a manual switch or via a phone app (in pdf of the article; see at least Citation 1), a battery power pack internal to the purse consisting of either one or more disposable cells or a single repeatedly rechargeable cell (also at Citation 1); and a light panel located on the first surface of the purse interior, wherein the on-off switch, the battery power pack, and the light source are each electrically coupled together with one or more wires each independently located in the purse interior (as understood at Citation 1). Design Boom teaches the light panel is an LED fiber optic panel; at the same time, Design Boom does not specifically disclose an electroluminescent panel. Maderic teaches clothing and other soft goods (see at least paragraphs [0007 and 0124]) with an illuminated panel which could be EL, fiber optics, or more (see at least the abstract and paragraph [0107]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a designer having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace Design Boom’s LED fiber optic panel with one or more interconnected Maderic’s electroluminescent light panel located on the first surface of Design Boom’s purse interior. One would have been motivated to do so as Maderic teaches the equivalence between the fiber optic panel and the electroluminescent panel based on the desired color generation needs (see at least paragraph [0107]). Regarding 16, Design Boom discloses the purse of claim 15 wherein the electroluminescent light panel is located along a bottom of the purse interior, one or both sides of the purse interior liner, or a combination thereof (as seen in the figures). Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Design Boom discloses the claimed invention as indicated above. Whilst one having ordinary skill in the art would recognized the benefit of a plastic coating, Design Boom doesn’t specifically disclose the inclusion thereof. Maderic teaches a plastic film encasing the electroluminescent panel (see at least [0113]). It would have been obvious to a designer having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Maderic’s transparent plastic covering. One would have been motivated to do so to provide extra protection to the panel and it’s associated circuit. Regarding claims 18-20, Design Boom discloses the claimed invention as indicated above. Design Boom also discloses a variety of colors of light. Maderic teaches the light panels which produce a variety of colors or patterns (see at least the abstract or at least paragraph [0005]). It would have been obvious to a designer having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Design Boom’s, as modified by Maderic, light panels consist of a plurality of soft white lights; a plurality of multi-colored lights; and/or illuminating in a wave pattern from left to right, top to bottom, side to side or combinations thereof. One would have been motivated to do so based on the abstract of Maderic. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following are cited as teaching similar illuminated purse liners: Levine et al. (US 12,449,119) Chien (US 2003/0231485) Bryan (US 2004/0090773) Branson (US 2005/0219839) Verona (US 2005/0281019) Leuty (US 2012/0212940) Kilfedder (US 2007/0008714) Venn (US 7,553,043) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEAH S MACCHIAROLO whose telephone number is (571)272-2719. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx 8:30am to 4:30pm. 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, James Lee can be reached at 571.272.7144. 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. /LEAH MACCHIAROLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 11, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12540718
ILLUMINATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12210180
BACKLIGHT MODULE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 28, 2025
Patent 12204133
BACKLIGHT MODULE AND DISPLAY PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 21, 2025
Patent 12181115
TWO-PART DEVICE, VEHICLE LIGHT WITH SUCH TWO-PART DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 31, 2024
Patent 12163642
LIGHTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 10, 2024
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+31.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 554 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month