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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/7/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 8/7/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 10, and 16 have been amended. Claim 4 has been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 10, and 16 being independent.
The rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn in view of the amendment cancelling Claim 4.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keller (US 2017/0130912, hereinafter “Keller”).
Regarding claim 1, Keller discloses a work light (lighting device 100; see Figs. 1-4, 7-11, 17; Abstract; para. [0026]-[0038], [0046]) comprising a body (device body 10; see Figs. 1-11; para. [0026]-[0031], [0033], [0035]-[0038], [0040], [0045]) including a battery receptacle (the body 10 includes a mounting portion 11 defining a receptacle for receiving a battery pack 30 in a recessed area of the body; see Figs. 1-8; para. [0026]-[0027], [0029]-[0030]); a light source head pivotably coupled to the body via a hinge (floodlight 20 is pivotably coupled to the body 10 via an unlabeled hinge; see Figs. 1-4, 7-14; para. [0026]-[0030], [0034], [0039]-[0044]), the light source head including a planar light panel (the light source head 20 is a planar light panel; see Figs. 1-4, 7-14; para. [0026]-[0030], [0034], [0039]-[0044]), the light source head being pivotable relative to the body between a first position, in which the light source head lays flat on a side of the body opposite the battery receptacle within a periphery of the body, and a second position, in which the light source head is pivoted away from the side of the body (the light source head 20 is pivotable relative to the body between a first position where the light source head lies flat against the body on a side opposite the battery receptacle 11 containing the battery 30, and can pivot away from the body towards a second position to emit light in different directions; see Figs. 1-11; para. [0028]-[0030], [0040]); and a battery removably coupled to the battery receptacle to selectively power the light source head (a battery pack 30 is inserted into the battery receptacle 11 and includes an engaging portion 31 to engage the battery receptacle and provide power to the light source head 20; see Figs. 1-8; para. [0026]-[0027], [0029]-[0030], [0032], [0037], [0045]-[0046]), the battery including a connection portion that couples to the battery receptacle (the battery 30 includes an engaging portion 31 for engaging with the battery receptacle 11; see Figs. 5-6; par. [0030]) and a support surface configured to support the work light in an upright configuration on a work surface such that in the upright configuration, the body is entirely elevated above the work surface (the battery 30 includes a support surface on a bottom side thereof opposite the side containing the connection portion 31 which can be used to support the entire work light 100 on a suitable work surface and thus elevated above that work surface; see Figs. 1-8, 17; para. [0026]-[0027], [0029]-[0030], [0032], [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Keller discloses wherein the hinge is positioned at an edge of the body (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17).
Regarding claim 3, Keller discloses wherein the hinge defines a pivot axis that extends along the edge of the body (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17).
Regarding claim 5, Keller discloses wherein the body includes a recess defined in the side of the body opposite the battery receptacle (a front side of the body 10 is recessed with contours matching those of the light source head 20 so that the light source head can be positioned flush against the body within the recessed areas thereof when not pivoted away from the body; see Figs. 1-11; para. [0028]-[0029]), and wherein the light source head is at least partially positioned within the recess when in the first position (see Figs. 1-2, 6-8; par. [0029]).
Regarding claim 6, Keller discloses wherein the body includes a first end (the body 10 includes a first end located at the hinge rotatably connecting the body to the light source head 20; see Figs. 1-11, 17), a second end opposite the first end (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17), and a length extending between the first end and the second end (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17), wherein the battery is insertable into the battery receptacle in a direction parallel to the length (the battery 30 is insertable into the battery receptacle 11 in a first coupling direction A which is parallel to the length of the body 10; see Figs. 5-7; para. [0030], [0032]), and wherein the first end of the body includes one or more controls (the body 10 includes a control portion 13 including at least a control switch 131 located at the first end of the body near the hinge; see Figs. 1, 7-11; para. [0033]-[0034]).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 2017/0130912) in view of Lin (US 2012/0281421). The teachings of Keller have been discussed above.
However, the teachings of Keller fail to disclose or fairly suggest the hinge is positioned at the second end of the body.
Lin teaches a work light (portable illumination device 100; see Figs. 1-10; Abstract; para. [0022]-[0031]) comprising a body (base part 10; see Figs. 1-10; para. [0022]-[0026], [0028]) including a battery receptacle (battery reception hole 15; see Fig. 2; par. [0023]); a light source head pivotably coupled to the body via a hinge (illumination unit 30 is coupled to a cover 20 by a second pivot unit 25, the cover being pivotably coupled to the body 10 by a first pivot unit 22 such that the cover and illumination unit pivot relative to the body via the first pivot unit 22; see Figs. 1-10; para. [0022]-[0023], [0025]-[0031]), the light source head including a planar light panel (the light source head 30 comprises an illumination member 33 connected to a board 31 to define a planar light panel; see Figs. 1, 3-10; para. [0026]-[0028], [0031]), the light source head being pivotable relative to the body between a first position, in which the light source head lays flat on a side of the body opposite the battery receptacle within a periphery of the body, and second position, in which the light source head is pivoted away from the side of the body (the light source head 30 pivots relative to the body 10 between a first position where the light source head is positioned flat within a first recess 11 and a second recess 111 in the body, to a second position where the light source head is pivoted away from the body; see Figs. 1-10; para. [0022], [0024]-[0031]); and a battery removably coupled to the battery receptacle to selectively power the light source head (a battery is coupled in the battery receptacle 15 to provide power; see Fig. 2; par. [0023]); wherein the body includes a first end (an end of the body 10 towards the second recess 111 defines a first end; see Figs. 1-10; para. [0024]-[0025], [0028]-[0029]), a second end opposite the first end (the other end of the body 10 where the hinge 22 is connected defines a second end; see Figs. 1-10; para. [0022], [0025], [0029]), and a length extending between the first end and the second end (as shown in Figs. 1-10), wherein the first end of the body includes one or more controls (a switch 16 which controls operation of the light source head 30 is connected to a side of the body 10 near the first end; see Fig. 2; para. [0023], [0028]), and wherein the hinge is positioned at the second end of the body (the hinge 22 is located at the second end of the body 10 opposite the first end where the switch 16 is located; see Figs. 1-10; para. [0022]-[0023], [0025], [0028]-[0029]).
Therefore, in view of Lin, 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 work light of Keller by rearranging the one or more controls at an opposite end of the body from the hinge, so that the first end of the body contains the one or more controls and the hinge is positioned at the second end of the body, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). One would have been motivated to modify the known work light of Keller by rearranging the one or more controls at an opposite end of the body from the hinge, so that the first end of the body contains the one or more controls and the hinge is positioned at the second end of the body, as taught by Lin, in order to ensure the controls are positioned on an opposite side of the body from the hinge and prevent a user’s fingers from accidentally getting caught in the hinge when trying to turn on the lights of the work light.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 2017/0130912). The teachings of Keller have been discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, Keller teaches wherein the body includes a first end (the body 10 includes a first end located at the hinge rotatably connecting the body to the light source head 20; see Figs. 1-11, 17), a second end opposite the first end (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17), and a body length extending between the first end and the second end (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17), wherein the battery includes a battery length measured parallel to the body length (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17).
However, the teachings of Keller fail to specifically disclose wherein the body length is less than the battery length.
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 work light of Keller by forming the body length to be less than the battery length, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, modifying the known work light of Keller by forming the body length to be less than the battery length 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 provide a larger base for the work light when it is being supported by the battery on a rest surface and provide an upwardly tapered appearance to the work light as a whole, which might be more aesthetically pleasing.
Regarding claim 9, Keller teaches wherein the body and the light source head have a height measured perpendicular to the body length (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17), wherein the battery has a height measured perpendicular to the battery length (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17).
However, the teachings of Keller fail to specifically disclose wherein the height of the body and the light source head is less than the height of the battery.
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 work light of Keller by forming the body and the light source head to have a height that is less than the height of the battery, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, modifying the known work light of Keller by forming the body and the light source head to have a height that is less than the height of the battery 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 provide a slimmer profile to the body and the light source head which might be more aesthetically pleasing.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 2017/0130912) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2006/0091858, hereinafter “Johnson”).
Regarding claim 10, Keller teaches a work light (lighting device 100; see Figs. 1-4, 7-11, 17; Abstract; para. [0026]-[0038], [0046]) comprising a body (device body 10; see Figs. 1-11; para. [0026]-[0031], [0033], [0035]-[0038], [0040], [0045]) including a battery receptacle (mounting portion 11 defines a receptacle for receiving a battery pack 30 in a recessed area of the body; see Figs. 1-8; para. [0026]-[0027], [0029]-[0030]), a first end (the body 10 includes a first end located at the hinge rotatably connecting the body to floodlight 20; see Figs. 1-11, 17), a second end opposite the first end (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17), and a body length extending between the first end and the second end (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17); a light source head pivotably coupled to the body via a hinge (floodlight 20 is pivotably coupled to the body 10 via an unlabeled hinge; see Figs. 1-4, 7-14; para. [0026]-[0030], [0034], [0039]-[0044]), the light source head including a planar light panel (the light source head 20 is a planar light panel; see Figs. 1-4, 7-14; para. [0026]-[0030], [0034], [0039]-[0044]), the light source head being pivotable relative to the body between a first position, in which the light source head lays flat on a side of the body opposite the battery receptacle within a periphery of the body, and a second position, in which the light source head is pivoted away from the side of the body (the light source head 20 is pivotable relative to the body between a first position where the light source head lies flat against the body on a side opposite the battery receptacle 11 containing the battery 30, and can pivot away from the body towards a second position to emit light in different directions; see Figs. 1-11; para. [0028]-[0030], [0040]); and a battery slidably received in the battery receptacle in a direction that is parallel to the body length (a battery pack 30 is insertable into the battery receptacle 11 in a first coupling direction A which is parallel to the length of the body 10; see Figs. 1-8; para. [0026]-[0027], [0029]-[0030], [0032], [0037], [0045]-[0046]), the battery including a connection portion that couples to the battery receptacle (the battery 30 includes an engaging portion 31 for engaging with the battery receptacle 11; see Figs. 5-6; par. [0030]) and an external portion that is adjacent the connection portion on a same side of the battery (see annotated Fig. 6 on pg. 12 of the instant Office Action), the battery having a battery length measured parallel to the direction (as shown in Figs. 1-8), such that the external portion is disposed outside of the body (as shown in Figs. 1-8, the external portion of the battery labeled in the annotated figure remains exposed below the tip of the second end of the body 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
656
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Keller (US 2017/0130912), annotated to clarify a location of an external portion of the battery adjacent the connection portion 31.
However, the teachings of Keller fail to disclose or fairly suggest the external portion including a battery power gauge light, wherein the body length is less than the battery length and the battery power gauge light is visible while the battery is coupled to the body.
Johnson teaches an electronic device comprising a body including a battery receptacle (an electronic power tool 55 such as a driver drill 58 or a work light (not shown) which includes a battery receptacle at a lower portion of a handle thereof which connects to terminal supports 70 of a battery 50; see Figs. 1-3, 5; para. [0126]-[0130]), a first end, a second end opposite the first end, and a body length extending between the first end and the second end (the device 58 includes a length at an upper portion thereof extending between first and second ends; see Fig. 5); and a battery slidably received in the battery receptacle in a direction that is parallel to the body length, the battery having a battery length measured parallel to the first direction (a battery 50 includes terminal supports 70 defining a sliding access for engaging with corresponding connections in the battery receptacle of the body of the device 58, which can only be inserted by being slid along a length direction of the battery; see Figs. 1-3, 5; para. [0126]-[0130], [0134]), the battery including a connection portion that couples to the battery receptacle (terminal supports 70 form a connection portion of the battery to couple to the battery receptacle of the body of the device 58; see Figs. 1-3, 5; para. [0126]-[0130], [0134]) and an external portion that is adjacent the connection portion on a same side of the battery, the external portion including a battery power gauge light (a fuel gauge 155 which includes an LED display that indicates a present state of charge of the battery 50 via LEDs 170a, 170b, 170c, and 170d is provided on an upper face 157 of a battery housing 65 of the battery adjacent the connection portion 70, on a same side thereof; see Figs. 1-3, 5; para. [0140]-[0146]), wherein the external portion is disposed outside of the body and the battery power gauge light is visible while the battery is coupled to the body (the external portion 157 is disposed outside the body of the device 58 on the housing 65 of the battery 50, and the battery power gauge light 155 is visible while the battery is coupled to power the device; see Figs. 1-3, 5; para. [[0140]-[0146]).
Therefore, in view of Johnson, 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 work light of Keller by providing a battery power gauge light on the external portion, such that the battery power gauge light is visible while the battery is coupled to the body. One would have been motivated to modify the known work light of Keller by providing a battery power gauge light on the external portion, such that the battery power gauge light is visible while the battery is coupled to the body, as taught by Johnson, in order to provide an illuminated indication to a user of the work light of the current state of charge of the battery (see Johnson, para. [0140], [0142]-[0146] in general for the motivation).
Further, 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 work light of Keller by forming the body length to be less than the battery length, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, modifying the known work light of Keller by forming the body length to be less than the battery length 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 provide a larger base for the work light when it is being supported by the battery on a rest surface and provide an upwardly tapered appearance to the work light as a whole, which might be more aesthetically pleasing.
However, regarding claim 11, the teachings of Keller fail to specifically disclose wherein the body length is between 40% and 90% of the battery length.
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 work light of Keller by forming the body to have a body length that is between 40% and 90% of the battery length, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, modifying the known work light of Keller by forming the body to have a body length that is between 40% and 90% of the battery length, or any other suitable dimensions, 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 provide a larger base for the work light when it is being supported by the battery on a rest surface and provide an upwardly tapered appearance to the work light as a whole, which might be more aesthetically pleasing
Regarding claim 12, Keller teaches wherein the body and the light source head have a height measured perpendicular to the body length (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17), wherein the battery has a height measured perpendicular to the battery length (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17).
However, the teachings of Keller fail to specifically disclose wherein the height of the body and the light source head is less than the height of the battery.
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 work light of Keller by forming the body and the light source head to have a height that is less than the height of the battery, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, modifying the known work light of Keller by forming the body and the light source head to have a height that is less than the height of the battery 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 provide a slimmer profile to the body and the light source head which might be more aesthetically pleasing.
However, regarding claim 13, the teachings of Keller fail to specifically disclose wherein the height of the body and the light source head is between 40% and 90% of the height of the battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by forming the body and the light source head to have a height that is between 40% and 90% of the height of the battery, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, modifying the known work light of Keller by forming the body and the light source head to have a height that is between 40% and 90% of the height of the battery would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as necessitated by the particular design requirements of a given application, in order to provide a slimmer profile to the body and the light source head which might be more aesthetically pleasing.
Regarding claim 14, Keller teaches wherein the body, the light source head, and the battery define a total height of the work light (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17).
However, the teachings of Keller fail to specifically disclose wherein the total height is approximately double the height of the body and the light source head.
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 work light of Keller by setting the total height to be approximately double the height of the body and the light source head, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, modifying the known work light of Keller by setting the total height to be approximately double the height of the body and the light source head 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 ensure the body and the light source head together have a similar height to the battery and provide a symmetrical size appearance to the components of the work light which might be more aesthetically pleasing.
Regarding claim 15, Keller teaches wherein the body, the light source head, and the battery define a total length of the work light (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17), and wherein the total length is greater than the battery length (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 2017/0130912) in view of Dorman et al. (US 2017/0167700, previously listed on the form PTO-892 mailed 10/27/2025, hereinafter “Dorman”).
Regarding claim 16, Keller teaches a work light (lighting device 100; see Figs. 1-4, 7-11, 17; Abstract; para. [0026]-[0038], [0046]) comprising a body (device body 10; see Figs. 1-11; para. [0026]-[0031], [0033], [0035]-[0038], [0040], [0045]) including an upper side (a front side of the body 10 is recessed with contours matching those of the floodlight 20 so that the floodlight can be positioned flush against the body within the recessed areas thereof when not pivoted away from the body; see Figs. 1-11; para. [0026]-[0030], [0034], [0039]-[0044]), a lower side opposite the upper side (the body 10 includes a mounting portion 11 on an opposite side thereof defining a receptacle for receiving a battery pack 30 in a recessed area of the body; see Figs. 1-8; para. [0026]-[0027], [0029]-[0030]), and a battery receptacle disposed on the lower side (mounting portion 11 defines a receptacle for receiving a battery pack 30 in a recessed area of the body; see Figs. 1-8; para. [0026]-[0027], [0029]-[0030]), the battery receptacle configured to receive a battery (a battery pack 30 is inserted into the battery receptacle 11 and includes an engaging portion 31 to engage the battery receptacle and provide power to the light source head 20; see Figs. 1-8; para. [0026]-[0027], [0029]-[0030], [0032], [0037], [0045]-[0046]); and a light source head pivotably coupled to the body via a hinge positioned at an edge of the body (floodlight 20 is pivotably coupled to the body 10 via an unlabeled hinge; see Figs. 1-4, 7-14; para. [0026]-[0030], [0034], [0039]-[0044]), the light source head including a planar light panel (the light source head 20 is a planar light panel; see Figs. 1-4, 7-14; para. [0026]-[0030], [0034], [0039]-[0044]), the light source head being pivotable relative to the body between a first position, in which the light source head lays flat on the upper side of the body within a periphery of the body, and a second position, in which the light source head is pivoted away from the upper side of the body (the light source head 20 is pivotable relative to the body between a first position where the light source head lies flat against the front side of the body, and can pivot away from the body towards a second position to emit light in different directions; see Figs. 1-11; para. [0028]-[0030], [0040]).
However, the teachings of Keller fail to specifically disclose that the light source head lays flat on the upper side entirely within a periphery of the body in the first position.
Dorman teaches a light (light 126; see Figs. 7-14; para. [0029]-[0035], [0039]-[0040], [0042]) comprising a body including an upper side and a lower side opposite the upper side (the light 126 comprises a body in the form of a housing 144 which includes a rear face 230 which can be a lower side if the body is supported on a surface 122 of a construction member 118 such as a table, and a front face 134 on an opposite side thereof which can be an upper side if the body is oriented with the rear face 230 set onto the surface 122 of the table 118; see Figs. 6-14; para. [0028]-[0030], [0033], [0039]); and a light source head pivotably coupled to the body via a hinge positioned at an edge of the body (a head 130 is pivotably coupled to the body 144 via a pivot joint 190, such as a hinge joint, arranged between adjoining edges of the upper side (front face 134) and top face 146; see Figs. 7-9, 11, 14; para. [0029]-[0033], [0038], [0042]), the light source head including a planar light panel (a circuit board 222 having LEDs 142 thereon is positioned beneath a lens or diffuser 138 within the light source head 130 to define a planar light panel; see Figs. 7, 11, 14; para. [0029], [0032], [0038]), the light source head being pivotable relative to the body between a first position, in which the light source head lays flat on the upper side entirely within a periphery of the body, and a second position, in which the light source head is pivoted away from the upper surface of the body (the light source head 130 is pivotable relative to the body 144 between a first position where the light source head 130 lays flat against the body within an entire periphery of the upper side (front face 134), shown in Fig. 7, and a second position where the light source head 130 is pivoted away from the body, shown in Fig. 11; see para. [0030]-[0032]).
Therefore, in view of Dorman, 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 work light of Keller by changing the dimensions of the light source head so that in the first position the light source head lays flat on the upper side entirely within a periphery of the body, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). One would have been motivated to modify the known work light of Keller by changing the dimensions of the light source head so that in the first position the light source head lays flat on the upper side entirely within a periphery of the body, as taught by Dorman, in order to provide a slimmer profile to the light source head which might be more aesthetically pleasing and reduce the risk of impact damage to the outer edges of the light source head not connected to the hinge.
Regarding claim 17, Keller teaches wherein the hinge defines a pivot axis that extends along the edge of the body (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17).
Regarding claim 18, Keller teaches wherein the body includes a recess defined in the upper side (a front or upper side of the body 10 is recessed with contours matching those of the light source head 20 so that the light source head can be positioned flush against the body within the recessed areas thereof when not pivoted away from the body; see Figs. 1-11; para. [0028]-[0029]), and wherein the light source head is at least partially positioned within the recess when in the first position (see Figs. 1-2, 6-8; par. [0029]).
Regarding claim 19, Keller teaches wherein the body includes a first end (the body 10 includes a first end located at the hinge rotatably connecting the body to the light source head 20; see Figs. 1-11, 17), a second end opposite the first end (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17), and a body length extending between the first end and the second end (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17), wherein the battery includes a battery length measured parallel to the body length (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17).
However, the teachings of Keller fail to specifically disclose wherein the body length is less than the battery length.
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 work light of Keller by forming the body length to be less than the battery length, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, modifying the known work light of Keller by forming the body length to be less than the battery length 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 provide a larger base for the work light when it is being supported by the battery on a rest surface and provide an upwardly tapered appearance to the work light as a whole, which might be more aesthetically pleasing.
Regarding claim 20, Keller teaches wherein the body and the light source head have a height measured perpendicular to the body length (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17), wherein the battery has a height measured perpendicular to the battery length (as shown in Figs. 1-11, 17).
However, the teachings of Keller fail to specifically disclose wherein the height of the body and the light source head is less than the height of the battery.
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 work light of Keller by forming the body and the light source head to have a height that is less than the height of the battery, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, modifying the known work light of Keller by forming the body and the light source head to have a height that is less than the height of the battery 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 provide a slimmer profile to the body and the light source head which might be more aesthetically pleasing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument with respect to amended Claim 1 now recites “a battery “including a connection portion that couples to the battery receptacle and a support surface on a side of the battery opposite from the connection portion, the support surface configured to support the work light in an upright configuration on a work surface such that in the upright configuration, the body is entirely elevated above the work surface” and that Keller (US 2017/0130912) “fails to disclose at least these features”, because “if the lighting device 100 is supported by this corresponding surface of the battery pack 30 (which is shown in FIG. 17 of Keller with a power tool), part of the device body 10 would contact the work surface, as identified in annotated FIG. 1 below, because the device body 10 extends past the battery pack” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pgs. 6-7), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In this case, Keller’s battery 30 includes an engaging portion 31 for engaging with the mounting portion 11 (battery receptacle) of the body 10 (see Figs. 5-6; par. [0030]). Accordingly, the surface opposite the side containing the connection portion 31 which is the support surface of the battery is the other long rectangular bottom surface of the battery 30. As shown in the annotated Fig. 1 on pg. 25 of the instant Office Action, when this bottom surface of the battery 30 is used as a support surface to support the work light 100 on a work surface, the entire work light is elevated above the work surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
348
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Keller (US 2017/0130912), annotated to clarify the location of the work surface below the work light 100.
Applicant appears to be suggesting that because part of Keller’s body 100 is in contact with the work surface, then the body cannot be considered entirely elevated above that work surface. In order to be considered elevated above something, an object must be “raised especially above the ground or other surface” (see the dictionary definition of “elevated” at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elevated). This does not exclude an object positioned above another object or surface from touching that other object or surface. For example, the keyboard which the Examiner is using to type this sentence is supported on a surface of a desk, which means that the keyboard is entirely positioned above the surface of the desk. In fact, any object placed on top of another surface is entirely elevated above that surface as long as no part of the object penetrates inside the surface.
Accordingly, since Keller’s work light 100 can be supported on a work surface, the body 10, battery 30, light source panel 20, and all other components of Keller’s device are entirely elevated above the work surface. Therefore, Keller discloses “the battery including a connection portion that couples to the battery receptacle and a support surface on a side of the battery opposite from the connection portion, the support surface configured to support the work light in an upright configuration on a work surface such that in the upright configuration, the body is entirely elevated above the work surface” as recited in amended Claim 1.
It appears Applicant is attempting to define the work light being supported in an upright configuration where the body is entirely spaced from or otherwise not in contact with the work surface supporting the work light (similar to what is shown in Figs. 10-12 and 16 of the instant application), however this is currently not reflected by the language of Claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 10 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, since the newly presented limitations have been addressed by the teachings of Johnson (US 2006/0091858) and Dorman (US 2017/0167700).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Olsson et al. (US 11,894,707) discloses a battery for a power tool or similar device which is removably coupled to a battery receptacle, the battery including a connection portion that couples to the battery receptacle, a support surface on a side of the battery opposite from the connection portion, and an external portion that includes a battery power gauge light, however the battery power gauge light is placed on the support surface opposite the connection portion. DeRome et al. (US 2008/0174269) discloses a battery charger for charging the removable battery pack of a power tool or similar device battery, comprising a connection portion that couples to the battery, and an external portion that is adjacent the connection portion on a same side of the battery charger, the external portion including a battery power gauge light.
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