DETAILED ACTION
This Notice is responsive to communication filed on 11/21/2025.
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
An amendment filed on 11/21/2025 has been acknowledged and entered into the record. Claims 11 and 19 have been cancelled.
Amended claims 2, 16, and 20 overcome the lack of antecedent basis claim rejections as filed in the prior Non-Final Office Action.
However, the amendment under 37 CFR 1.112 filed 11/21/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 2 and 20 based upon the rejections as set forth in the last Office action because: see 112 rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025, regarding claim 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the reference discloses Aluminum Oxide instead of Aluminum metal) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "322" (amendments to the specification, dated 11/21/2025, para. 0049, line 5) and "410" (specification dated 03/07/2023, pg. 12, line 1) have both been used to designate "electrical circuit". Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitations:
"N=number of latitude dividing globe" in line 5.
"better or smoother of globe" in line 6.
"n=" in line 7.
The 3 phrases above are indefinite and fail to distinctly point out what is meant by the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitations:
"N=number of latitude dividing globe" in line 5.
"larger number of latitude" in line 5.
"better of the spherical globe" in line 6.
"n= nth of latitude" in line 7.
The 4 phrases above are indefinite and fail to distinctly point out what is meant by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 20200168133).
Regarding claim 10, Hwang teaches a light emitting diode (LED)module, comprising
a substrate Fig. 3: 10 (para. 0041, display panel);
at least one LED Fig. 3: 11 mounted onto a surface of the substrate; and
a support Fig. 3: 12, wherein the substrate Fig. 3: 10 is connected to the support Fig. 3: 12, wherein various sizes of LED Fig 3: 11 and the substrate Fig. 3: 10 are flexible and curved (para. 0041) to form a spherical shape (shown in Fig. 3), and wherein the substrate Fig. 3: 10 has a parallel top and bottom side (top and bottom sides of Fig. 3: 10), a curved side connected to both ends of the top and bottom sides to form a quadrilateral shape (shape of Fig. 3: 10), wherein the curved side and the top and bottom sides forms four corners, wherein the four corners are not reduced or cut (shown in Fig. 3: 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 208298481 U), and further in view of Shen et al. (US 11645954 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches an LED module Fig. 1 removably connected to a source of constant current, comprising:
a substrate Fig. 1: 1 (PCB) having a parallel top and bottom side, a side connected to both ends of the top and bottom sides to form a quadrilateral shape, wherein the side and the top and bottom sides forms four corners, wherein the four corners are not reduced or cut (annotated below); and
an electrical circuit (para. 7, “control circuit”) mounted and molded on the substrate Fig. 1: 1 (para. 7, “fixed on the driving surface by sticking”), said electrical circuit comprising an LED Fig. 1: 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
581
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But, Wang fails to explicitly teach a substrate having a curved side. However, Shen teaches a substrate having a curved side (i.e. left side of panel in Fig. 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wang and Shen for the purpose of avoiding the mutual interference of the panels (col. 10, lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the module according to claim 1 further comprises a support Fig. 1: 7 (para. 8, “magnetic steel seats”) to the substrate Fig. 1:1.
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the module according to claim 3, wherein the support Fig. 1:7 (magnetic steel seats) includes at least one mounting region at an edge (para. 13, “magnet seats are attached to the four corners…”) of the support Fig. 1: 7.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the module according to claim 4, wherein the mounting region comprises at least one magnet Fig. 1: 7 (magnetic seat).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the module according to claim 1, wherein the support Fig. 1: 7 is attached to a skeleton Fig. 5: 8 by the magnet (para. 13 “mounted on the curved frame 8 by four magnet seats 7).
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches a spherical LED display system Fig. 5 comprising:
a plurality of removable LED modules Fig. 1 (para. 11, LED screen module) connected to a support Fig. 1: 7, each removable LED module comprising:
a substrate Fig. 1: 1; and
an electrical circuit (para. 7, “control circuit”) mounted and molded on the curved substrate Fig. 1: 1 (para. 7, “fixed on the driving surface by sticking”), said electrical circuit comprises an LED Fig. 1: 1 mounted on the substrate (para. 11, “surface mount type LEDs fixed on the surface”).
But, Wang fails to explicitly teach a curved substrate. However, Shen teaches a curved substrate (i.e. left side of panel in Fig. 9; also teaches an isosceles trapezoidal cambered surface). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wang and Shen for the purpose of avoiding the mutual interference of the panels (col. 10, lines 62-64).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 208298481 U) and Shen et al. (US 11645954 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bogyun et al. (KR 20200114646 A).
Regarding claim 6, although Wang and Shen teach the substantial features of the claimed invention, they fail to explicitly teach the module according to claim 1, wherein the module includes an insulating cover. However, Bogyun teaches wherein the module includes an insulating cover Fig. 2: 300 (para. 0038 “black film”; para. 0050, black film includes polyethylene terephthalate which is insulating). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Wang, Shen, and Bogyun for the purpose of creating an insulating cover to increase contrast ration of the display screen and to protect the LEDs from the external environment (para. 0038).
Regarding claim 7, although Wang and Shen teach the substantial features of the claimed invention, they fail to explicitly teach the module according to claim 1, wherein the insulating cover is molded onto the LED module. However, Bogyun teaches wherein the insulating cover Fig. 2: 300 is molded onto the LED module (para. 0051 “black film is attached to cover the upper and four sides of the LED display module”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Wang, Shen, and Bogyun for the purpose of creating an insulating cover to suppress a light leakage phenomenon through the fap between the matrix arrangement (para. 0051).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 208298481 U) and Shen et al. (US 11645954 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marutani (US 20180097165 A1).
Regarding claim 9, although Wang and Shen teach the substantial features of the claimed invention, they fail to teach the module according to claim 10, wherein the support comprises aluminum. However, Marutani teaches the module according to claim 4, wherein the support Fig. 2B: 31+32 (insulating resin film and wire) comprises aluminum (para 0047, lines 5-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine Wang, Shen, and Marutani’s teachings for the purpose of ensuring protection of the wire (support) and insulation with the wire (para 0047).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20200168133) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen et al. (US 11645954 B2).
Regarding claim 12, although Hwang teaches the substantial features of the claimed invention, Hwang fails to explicitly teach the module according to claim 10, wherein the substrate has a smaller length on the top than the bottom sides. However, Shen teaches wherein the substrate Fig. 5: 111 (Shen) has a smaller length on the top than the bottom sides (as in an isosceles trapezoidal shape in Shen: col. 8, lines 30-39 “isosceles trapezoidal cambered surface in the up and down direction of the equatorial plane”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Hwang and Shen for the purpose of avoiding the mutual interference of the panels (col. 10, lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 13, although Hwang teaches the substantial features of the claimed invention, Hwang fails to explicitly teach the module according to claim 10, wherein the support includes at least one mounting region at an edge for mounting the module. However, Shen teaches the module according to claim 10, wherein the support Fig. 11: 121 includes at least one mounting region at an edge for mounting the module (annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
508
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaches of Hwang and Shen for the purpose of mounting and adjusting the position of the display module to the panel through the magnetic steel (i.e. support) (col. 12, lines 27-32).
Regarding claim 14, Shen teaches the module according to claim 13, wherein the mounting region comprises at least one magnet Fig. 11: 1114 (see annotated Fig. 11 above).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20200168133) and Shen et al. (US. 11645954 B2) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Bogyun et al. (KR 20200114646 A).
Regarding claim 15, although Hwang and Shen teach most of the features of the claimed invention, Hwang and Shen fail to explicitly teach the module according to claim 10, wherein the module includes an insulating cover. However, Bogyun teaches wherein the module includes an insulating cover Fig. 2: 300 (para. 0038 “black film”; para. 0050, black film includes polyethylene terephthalate which is insulating). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Shen, Marutani, and Bogyun for the purpose of creating an insulating cover to increase contrast ration of the display screen and to protect the LEDs from the external environment (para. 0038).
Regarding claim 16, although Hwang and Shen teach most of the features of the claimed invention, Hwang and Shen fail to teach the module according to claim 10, wherein the insulating cover is molded onto the LED module. However, Bogyun teaches the insulating cover Fig. 2: 300 is molded onto the LED module (para. 0051 “black film is attached to cover the upper and four sides of the LED display module”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Shen, Marutani, and Bogyun for the purpose of creating an insulating cover to suppress a light leakage phenomenon through the fap between the matrix arrangement (para. 0051).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20200168133) and Shen et al. (US. 11645954 B2) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of He (CN 107481628 A).
Regarding claim 17, although Hwang and Shen teach most of the features of the claimed
invention, Hwang and Shen fail to teach the module according to claim 10, wherein the support is attached to a skeleton by the magnet. However, He teaches the support Fig. 4: 10 is attached to a skeleton Fig. 4: 71 by the magnet Fig. 4: 60 (para. 4, lines 4-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Hwang, Shen, and He and attaching the support to the skeleton via magnets for the purpose of having efficient spacing between the LEDs and avoiding distortion, deformation, or loss of image quality (para. 10).
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 NKECHINYERE ESIABA whose telephone number is (571)272-0720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10am-5pm EST.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/Nkechinyere Esiaba/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 February 17, 2026