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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (2022/0268408) in view of Harvey et al. (2017/0138575).
With respect to claims 1 and 5, Cao teaches a task light (100) comprising: a base module (11) including a housing (121 and top portion of 11), a plurality of handles (15 and 16) being D-shaped (Fig. 1); a frame (side and bottom portions of 11) defining a plurality of handles (right, left, and/or rear sides of 11), a user interface (115), and a battery receptacle (receptacle for 13), the battery receptacle configured to receive a battery (paragraph 51); and a plurality of lighting elements including: a first lighting element (122) including a first end (bottom side of 122 in Fig. 1), a second end (left side of 122 in Fig. 1), a third end (top side of 122 in Fig. 1), and a fourth end (right side of 122 in Fig. 1), the first end pivotally coupled to the base module about a first pivot axis (Figs. 1-2), a second lighting element (123) pivotally coupled to the second end of the first lighting element about a second pivot axis (Figs. 1, 2 and 11), and a third lighting element (124) pivotally coupled to the fourth end of the first lighting element about a third pivot axis (Figs. 1, 2, and 11), wherein the plurality of lighting elements is moveable between a working configuration (Figs. 1 and 11) and a storage configuration (Fig. 2).
Cao does not explicitly teach a frame defining a plurality of handles extending rearwardly relative to the housing (claim 1).
As for claim 1, Harvey also drawn to task lights, teaches a frame (18 and portion of 22 that slides into 18) defining a plurality of handles (22 and 74) extending rearwardly relative to the housing (Figs. 4 and 8).
As for claim 5, Harvey teaches wherein the frame (18 and portion of 22 that slides into 18) includes a rafter hook (at 82) movably disposed (Figs. 4 and 8) within a hook recess (recess in 18) formed within the frame (Figs. 4 and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the frame and handle arrangement of Harvey in the task light of Cao, in order to make the handles more easily accessible.
As for claim 2, Cao teaches wherein the first lighting element (122) includes a housing (1212 and 1213), a light panel (1214) positioned within the housing and configured to be operated by the user interface (paragraphs 58-59), and a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (1214a) supported on the light panel (Fig. 4).
As for claim 3, Cao teaches wherein the housing (121 and top portion of 11) defines a first side (front of 121) of the task light, a second side (top of 121) of the task light, a third side (back of 121) of the task light, and a fourth side (top of 111) of the task light (Fig. 1).
As for claim 4, Cao teaches wherein in the storage configuration, the first lighting element extends adjacent the first side, the second lighting element extends adjacent the second side, and the third lighting element extends adjacent the fourth side (Fig. 2).
As for claim 6, Cao teaches wherein in the working configuration, the plurality of lighting elements creates a substantially trapezoidal shape (Fig. 11).
As for claim 7, Cao teaches wherein the working configuration is a first working configuration (Figs. 1 and 11), and wherein the plurality of lighting elements is moveable to a second working configuration (Figs. 1 and 11).
As for claim 8, Cao teaches wherein in the second working configuration, the plurality of lighting elements creates a substantially triangular shape (Fig. 11).
As for claim 21, Cao teaches wherein the plurality of handles (15 and 16) includes a first handle (15) and a second handle (16) respectively positioned on opposite sides of the battery receptacle (at top and bottom 13 when in a storage configuration; Fig. 2) such that the battery is located between the first handle and the second handle (Fig. 2).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao and Harvey, as is applied to claims 1-8 above, further in view of Kennemer et al. (9,205,774).
As for claims 9-10, Cao and Harvey teach all of the claimed elements, as is discussed above, except for explicitly teaching teaching a frame having a spring-loaded latch, and wherein in the storage configuration, the spring-loaded latch engages at least one lighting element of the plurality of lighting elements to inhibit movement about the first pivot axis (claim 9); wherein the latch is configured to be depressed to permit movement of the plurality of lighting elements from the storage configuration to the working configuration (claim 10).
As for claim 9, Kennemer also drawn to task lights, teaches a frame having a spring-loaded latch, and wherein in the storage configuration, the spring-loaded latch engages at least one lighting element of the plurality of lighting elements to inhibit movement about the first pivot axis (column 3, lines 51-63 and column 5, lines 1-8).
As for claim 10, Kennemer teaches wherein the latch is configured to be depressed to permit movement of the plurality of lighting elements from the storage configuration to the working configuration (column 2, lines 51-63 and column 4, lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the spring-loaded latch configuration of Kennemer in the task light of Cao, in order to hold the lights in a selected position (column 4, lines 1-8).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao and Harvey, as is applied to claims 1-8 above, further in view of Fang (10,429,013).
With respect to claim 14, Cao and Harvey teach all of the claimed elements, as is discussed above, as well as Cao further teaches a base module including a housing having a length, a height, and a width that extend perpendicular to one another and a battery receptacle configured to receive a battery (Fig. 1); and a plurality of lighting elements including: a first lighting element pivotally coupled to the base module about a first pivot axis extending parallel to the width, a second lighting element pivotally coupled to a first side of the first lighting element about a second pivot axis, and a third lighting element pivotally coupled to a second side of the first lighting element opposite from the second lighting element about a third pivot axis (Figs. 1, 2, and 11) [claim 14].
Cao and Harvey do not explicitly teach a first lighting element pivotally coupled to the base module about a first pivot axis extending parallel to the width and being rotatable relative to the base module about a rotation axis extending perpendicular to the first pivot axis (claim 14).
As for claim 14, Fang also drawn to tasks lights, teaches a first lighting element (32) pivotally coupled to a base module (28 and 38) about a first pivot axis extending parallel to a width and being rotatable relative to the base module about a rotation axis extending perpendicular to the first pivot axis (Figs. 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the pivoting and rotating hinge of Fang in the first lighting element of Cao, in order to provide quick and convenient adjustments and to allow orientation into a into a variety of different positions to illuminate a workspace of any desired shape or size (column 4, lines 22-28 of Fang).
As for claim 15, Cao teaches wherein the second pivot axis and the third pivot axis extend perpendicular to the first pivot axis (Figs. 1, 2, and 11).
As for claim 16, Cao teaches wherein the second pivot axis and the third pivot axis extend parallel to the rotation axis (Figs. 1, 2, and 11).
As for claim 17, Cao teaches wherein a first hinge is configured to pivotally couple the plurality of lighting elements to the base module (Figs. 1, 2, and 11).
As for claim 18, Cao teaches wherein the first lighting element is pivotally coupled to the base module by the first hinge (Figs. 1, 2, and 11).
As for claim 19, Cao teaches wherein the second lighting element is pivotally coupled to the first lighting element by a second hinge and the third lighting element is pivotally coupled to the first lighting element by a third hinge (Figs. 1, 2, and 11).
As for claim 20, the elements of Fang added above teach all of the claimed elements, as is discussed above, as well as teaching wherein the first lighting element is pivotable up to about 180 degrees relative to the base module about the first pivot axis, and wherein the first lighting element is rotatable up to about 300 degrees relative to the base module about the rotation axis (Figs. 9-10). Although Fang does not explicitly teach the first light element is pivotable up to 270 degrees, and wherein the first lighting element is rotatable up to about 360 degrees relative to the base module about the rotation axis, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another set of dimensions. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); 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 re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to experiment with and/or optimize the pivot and rotation angles, in order to allow greater freedom of use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 11, the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the latch is a first latch configured to engage the second lighting element in the storage configuration, and wherein the frame has a second latch configured to engage the third lighting element in the storage configuration; along with the other limiting elements of claims 9 and 11.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM JOSEPH CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-0959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at 571-272-2399. 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 J CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 4/7/2026
Prosecution Insights