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 2/9/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 10, and 16 being independent.
The rejection of Claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In this case, Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the hinge is coupled to an edge of the light source head” in lines 1-2 of the claim, however Claim 1 already recites “a light source head pivotably coupled to the body via a hinge” in line 3 thereof, which means that the hinge is connected to an area of the light source head and an area of the body where the respective light source head and body end, i.e. their respective edges (see the dictionary definition 2a of “edge” at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edge). Therefore, Claim 4 fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keller (US 2017/0130912, previously listed on the IDS filed 4/24/2025, 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 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 elevated above the work surface (the battery 30 includes various support surfaces 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 4, Keller discloses wherein the hinge is coupled to an edge of the light source head (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]).
Regarding claim 16, 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 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]).
Regarding claim 17, 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 18, Keller discloses 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]).
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 8-15 and 19-20 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 claims 8 and 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 claims 9 and 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.
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 having a battery length measured parallel to the direction (as shown in Figs. 1-8).
However, the teachings of Keller fail to specifically disclose 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.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “claim 4 does further limit claim 1” because “Claim 1 does not recite the location of the hinge, while claim 4 does” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pgs. 6-7), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant is respectfully advised that claims in a pending application should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974). See also In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
As previously explained, Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the hinge is coupled to an edge of the light source head” in lines 1-2 of the claim, while Claim 1 recites “a light source head pivotably coupled to the body via a hinge” in line 3 thereof, which means that the hinge is connected to an area of the light source head and an area of the body where the respective light source head and body end. By definition, an “edge” of any object or area is the line where that object or area begins or ends, also known as its border (see the dictionary definition 2a of “edge” at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edge). This is consistent with the dictionary definition from a different dictionary (“Dictionary.com”) cited by the Applicant, which defines an “edge” as “the line at which two surfaces of a solid object meet” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 6), since such a line defines the border between two sections of that object begin or end. The same dictionary cited by Applicant also defines an “edge” of something as “a line or border at which a surface terminates” (see the dictionary definition 1 of “edge” at https://www.dictionary.com/browse/edge?q=Edge).
Accordingly, according to all three definitions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “edge” is any border region of a solid object where that object begins or ends, or where a section of that object begins or ends or otherwise contacts another section thereof. Therefore, since the only way for the light source head to be pivotally coupled to the body by a hinge as recited in Claim 1 is for the hinge to contact a border or edge of the light source head and a border or edge of the body, Claim 1 already requires the hinge to be coupled to an edge of the light source head as recited in Claim 4.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument with respect to Keller (US 2017/0130912) with respect to amended Claim 1 that “The cited art, specifically including Keller, at least fails to disclose a work light including a battery including a support surface that supports the work light in an upright configuration on a work surface such that in the upright configuration, the body is elevated above the work surface” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pgs. 7-8), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In this case, Keller’s battery 30 includes various surfaces (see generally Figs. 1-8; para. [0026]-[0027], [0029]-[0030], [0032]) which are capable of supporting the work light in an upright position above a horizontal support surface. For clarity on the location of these support surfaces, Fig. 1 of Keller has annotated twice (see below on pgs. 20-21 of the instant Office Action) to clarify two different orientations where the work light 100 can be supported on a work surface in a position elevated above the work surface, one of which is a rotated view since the work surface cannot be a vertical surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
630
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Another example is shown in Fig. 17, which shows the battery pack 30 of the work light 100 can be mounted to a power tool 200 to allow the same support surface of the battery pack to support the power tool on a work surface in an upright configuration with the power tool elevated above the work surface (see Fig. 17; par. [0046]), and it is clear that the work light 100 is also designed to be supported on the work surface elevated above the work surface in the same manner.
Accordingly, the battery 30 of Keller’s work light is capable of supporting the work light 100 on top of a horizontal support surface positioned below the light and therefore “elevated above the work surface” as claimed, and therefore Keller discloses “the battery including 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 elevated above the work surface” as recited in amended Claim 1.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument with respect to amended Claim 16 that “The cited art, specifically including Keller, does not disclose a light source head that lays flat on an upper side of a body within a periphery of the body” because “an end of a floodlight 20 extends beyond a periphery of the device body 10”, specifically referencing “the Applicant-annotated line defining an end of the floodlight 20 extends downwardly beyond a periphery of the device body 10 when laying flat, in contrast to the language of independent claim 16” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pgs. 8-9), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Additionally, the Applicant is respectfully advised that claims in a pending application should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974). See also In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
In this case, Claim 16 recites “a first position, in which the light source head lays flat on the upper side within a periphery of the body” in lines 6-7 of the claim. In order to be considered “within” something, an object must be positioned “in or into the interior” or “inside” of something (see the dictionary definition 1 of “within” at two separate dictionaries, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/within and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/within). Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation in Claim 16 is that the light source head must be at least partially inside the periphery of the body when in the first position.
As explained by Keller, the floodlight (light source head) 20 is pivotable relative to the device body 10 between a first position where the light source head lies flat against the body on a front/upper side thereof and can pivot away from the body towards a second position (see Figs. 1-11; para. [0028]-[0030], [0040]). As shown in Figs. 1-11, the light source head 20 is designed to have the same or approximately the same width as the body 10, so that the light source head lies inside the periphery of the body when the light source head is pivoted to the first position against the body.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 10 that “it would not have been obvious to modify the lighting device 100 of Keller to include a body length that is less than the battery length for at least three reasons” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 10), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the Applicant’s first argument with respect to the rejection of Claim 1o that “Because changing a battery’s size and shape typically changes its performance, the Office’s assertion that a battery “having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device”, Office Action at p. 16 (Oct. 27, 2025), is incorrect, and the Office’s reliance on In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), is therefore improper” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 10), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner never suggested modifying the size and/or dimensions of Keller’s battery in rejecting Claim 10 on pg. 16 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/27/2025 or anywhere else in the previous Office Action. Instead, as previously explained and repeated above in the rejection of Claim 10 in Section 22 on pgs. 12-14 of the instant Office Action, the proposed modification is to form the body length to be less than the battery length, i.e. modifying the dimensions of the body itself, NOT those of the battery, as doing so would cause the battery to provide a larger base for the work light when it is being supported by the battery on a rest surface. Accordingly, the proposed modification would not cause the battery’s electronic components to perform any differently as the battery itself is not being modified at all, just the body.
Regarding the Applicant’s second argument with respect to Claim 10 that “If, for the sake of argument, the design of Keller were modified as suggested by the Office to produce a work light in which the body length is less than the battery length, then the battery would necessarily extend beyond at least one side of the body along the length direction, which would change a performance characteristic of the prior art device of Keller, namely an exposure of the battery to impact damage”, and therefore “for this reason, too, the Office reliance upon Gardner is improper and based on impermissible hindsight” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 10), 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, Keller’s battery 30 is already constantly exposed to potential impact damage without making any changes whatsoever to any portion of Keller’s lighting device 100, since a user of the device could possibly throw the lamp, slam the battery too hard against a work surface, or potentially hit the exposed sides of the battery with a hammer or other objects during use of the lamp, all of which could possibly damage the battery. Accordingly, the proposed modification to change the length of the body would not “change any performance characteristic of the prior art device of Keller, namely an exposure of the battery to impact damage”, since Keller’s battery is already under constant risk of impact damage without making any modifications to the device.
Further, with respect to Applicant’s specific argument that the conclusion of obviousness was based on improper hindsight reasoning, the Examiner notes that it was well established in the illumination art well before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that work lights can have bodies with lengths smaller than those of their associated battery, as evidenced by two references originally cited by the Applicant in the IDS filed 4/24/2025, specifically Li (US 2015/0247628) and Aoki et al. (US 2015/0276182). Since both of these references depict work lights having a battery having a length/width that is larger than the lamp body the battery is mounted to, it is clear that it was common knowledge well before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a work light can have a body length that is less than the battery length, and therefore the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness could not have been based on improper hindsight reasoning at all.
Regarding the Applicant’s third argument with respect to Claim 10 that “the Office’s application of Gardner is improper because the Office seems to apply Gardner as a per se rule rather than by presenting a fact-based comparison of the present case to Gardner”, because “the Office seems to have simply applied a purported per se rule from Gardner without any supporting factual analysis to confirm that the facts of Gardner correspond to the facts of the present application. Office Action at pp. 15-16 (Oct. 27, 2025)” and therefore “Such an application of a per se rule of obviousness bypasses the Graham factors and effectively avoids the Office’s duty to establish a prima facie case of obviousness as set forth in MPEP § 2143” (see Applicant’s Remarks, pgs. 10-11), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In this case, no per se rule has been applied in order to reject Claim 10 or any other currently pending claim in the instant Office Action or in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/27/2025. Instead, as previously explained in the rejection of Claim 10 in Section 26 on pgs. 14-16 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/27/2025 and repeated above in the rejection of Claim 10 in Section 22 on pgs. 12-14 of the instant Office Action, the Examiner has provided an explanation of the features taught by the Keller reference, noting that Keller teaches all the features of Claim 10, including that the body has a body length and the battery has a battery length, but fails to specifically teach or suggest that the body length is less than the battery length. The Examiner then noted that the only difference between the work light of Keller and the work light of Claim 10 is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed work light, which is similar to the conclusion set forth in 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), which also dealt with a difference in relative dimensions of the device in question. By noting this in the rejection of Claim 10 in Section 26 on pgs. 14-16 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/27/2025 (which is repeated in the rejection of Claim 10 above), this constitutes a factual analysis of the Gardner case compared to Claim 10 of the instant application in accordance with MPEP 2144(III). No further explanation or discussion of Gardner itself is required. Finally, the Examiner provided an explanation of why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed modification, noting by a review of the disclosure as filed that there appears to be no specific discussion in Applicant’s Specification as originally filed that the claimed relative dimensions between the body length and the battery length solve any particular problem or are for any particular reason, which suggests a lack of criticality to this particular claimed feature.
Accordingly, the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) defined in MPEP 2141(II) have been resolved to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in rejecting Claim 10 without the use of any per se rules in accordance with MPEP 2143 and 2144, and therefore the rejection of Claim 10 has been maintained.
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