Patent 9198261
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-flash
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 9,198,261, I will examine the patent citations listed in the patent document itself. The patent text provides a "Citations" section.
Here's an analysis of the prior art cited in US Patent 9,198,261, focusing on those most relevant to the independent claims:
Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 9,198,261
The following patents are cited within US9198261B2 and are considered relevant prior art:
-
- Full Citation: US5018057A, Lamp Technologies, Inc., "Touch initiated light module"
- Publication/Filing Date: Published May 21, 1991. Filed January 17, 1990.
- Brief Description: This patent describes a touch-initiated light module. While not specifically for objects that open and close, it teaches the concept of a light source activated by touch.
- Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference could potentially anticipate elements of Claims 1, 9, and 19 related to a first light source being supplied with electric power when a first sensor is touched. Specifically, the "touch initiated light module" directly addresses the touch-activated aspect of the current patent.
DE202007011357U1
- Full Citation: DE202007011357U1, Schech, Christian, "Interior pocket lighting with sensor"
- Publication/Filing Date: Published February 21, 2008. Filed August 14, 2007.
- Brief Description: This German utility model describes an illumination device placed in an object that cannot be opened, where the light source is activated by motion or touching. The patent notes this prior art's disadvantage of inadvertent activation.
- Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is particularly relevant to the foundational idea of a light source in a portable object activated by motion or touch, as described in Claims 1 and 19. However, US9198261B2 distinguishes itself by incorporating a second sensor for opening/closing and a second light source, addressing the "inadvertent activation" problem of this prior art.
US20050057923A1
- Full Citation: US20050057923A1, Big Bang Industries, Llc, "Method and apparatus to illuminate the interior of a fashion accessory"
- Publication/Filing Date: Published March 17, 2005. Filed June 4, 2002.
- Brief Description: This patent application describes a method and apparatus to illuminate the interior of a fashion accessory.
- Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is relevant to the general concept of illuminating the interior of an object, which relates to the function of the second light source in Claim 1 when the object is opened. However, the specific dual-sensor activation and interaction described in US9198261B2 would likely differentiate it.
US20050135083A1
- Full Citation: US20050135083A1, Cindy Tait, "Purse illumination assembly"
- Publication/Filing Date: Published June 23, 2005. Filed December 23, 2003.
- Brief Description: This patent application describes an assembly for illuminating a purse.
- Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US20050057923A1, this reference addresses the broad concept of illuminating a bag's interior, touching upon the utility of the second light source in Claim 1.
US8147086B2 (Cited by the family, not directly by 9198261, but relevant)
- Full Citation: US8147086B2, Tait Cynthia K, "Purselight with touch-sensitive switch"
- Publication/Filing Date: Published April 3, 2012. Filed February 16, 2007.
- Brief Description: This patent describes a purselight with a touch-sensitive switch.
- Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is highly relevant to the "touch-sensitive switch" aspect of the first sensor in Claims 1 and 19, especially considering Claim 9's focus on a capacitive sensor.
This analysis focuses on direct anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (i.e., whether a single piece of prior art discloses every element of a claim). A more in-depth analysis would also consider obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which involves combining multiple prior art references.
Generated 5/31/2026, 6:47:02 AM