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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 1/20/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot, because the new ground of rejection relies on a revised interpretation that now includes, Kim, to read on newly amended language. The amended claims do not overcome Ogawa in view of Kim and further in view of Strum following newly amended language. Please see revised rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Note, at least claims 1, 9 and 18 introduce new matter not supported by the originally filed disclosure; whereas, none of the Figs in applicant’s Drawings reasonably show LEDs evenly distributed among the four corners of the PCB. Applicant is encouraged to show support for the term “distributed evenly” among the four corners of the PCB in the originally filed disclosure or cancel this language from the claim(s). Appropriate action necessary.
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(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ogawa 2022/0015227 in view of Kim 2020/0396850 and further in view of Strum 5,986,217.
Regarding claim 1, Ogawa discloses a system (in the form of a 'wiring board' see Abstract), comprising: a printed circuit board (portion 10, see Figs 1-45, for example) having at least one layer (layer - 40 or 60, Fig 4A); and an aperture (37, Fig 4B) through at least one layer of the PCB (as in Figs 2B, 4C) interposed between a location for a LED at a first side of the PCB (LED – location of portion 51 on left side/half, Fig 2B; also see par 0108) and a location for a chipset on a second side PCB board (chipset such as "LSI" par 0108 - location of portion 51 on right side/half, Fig 2B; or via portions 391/392 Fig 12 for example); wherein the PCB board has a top side, a bottom side, a left side, and a right side (included sides of 10 as depicted in Figs 1, 2A for example) to form four corners (corners of 10, Fig 2A), wherein the LED is distributed evenly at the first side of PCB among the four corners of the PCB board (as depicted in Fig 2A, for example) in such a way that the LED provides a digital signage when led up and controlled by the chipset on the second side PCB board (at 391/392, par 0204; also see middle of par 0185).
Ogawa discloses the claimed invention except for expressly teaching a plurality of magnets on the second side PCB board in such a way that the plurality of magnets are attachable to a support, or wherein the PCB is bendable at a radius about 360 mm, tensile strength having been decreased about 50% by having apertures on the PCB.
Kim however teaches a plurality of magnets (64, Figs 15-16) on a second side PCB board (side of 10 where PCB locates, par 0064) in such a way that the plurality of magnets are attachable to a support (15c, Fig 16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second side PCB board of Ogawa to include plurality of magnets attachable to support, as taught by Kim, in order to provide close adhesion of one surface of LED to a planar surface, thereby improving structural rigidity upon a desired plane or surface.
Furthermore, Strum teaches a similar system (Fig 3) wherein a PCB (4, Fig 3) is bendable at a radius (at RA or RB, Fig 3), tensile strength having been decreased (decreased or eliminated tensile stress/strength, col 5 lines 60-62) by having apertures on the PCB (apertures formed between 6, 7, 5 Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure bendable radius tensile strength of the PCB of Ogawa in view of Park to include a radius approximately 360mm and tensile strength decreased about 50%, as suggested by Strum, in order to control warping due to variations in coefficient thermal expansion of different materials that make up the PCB, thereby optimizing or preventing thermally induced mechanical damage by creating the radii and tensile strength, as desired, to achieve the desired outcome.
Going further, note that since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Ogawa in view of Kim in view of Strum discloses the system of claim 1, Ogawa teaches wherein the aperture is filled with an insulating medium selected from a group comprising of air and a material which is softer than that of PCB board (aperture portion 37 is filled with air, see Fig 2B and 4B, for example).
Regarding claim 3, Ogawa in view of Kim in view of Strum discloses the system of claim 1, Ogawa teaches wherein the aperture is at least one of round dot, a rod, or across (aperture 37 resembles round dot or rod, Fig 2B).
Regarding claim 4, Ogawa in view of Kim in view of Strum discloses the system of claim 1, Ogawa teaches wherein the aperture does not extend to an edge of the PCB (at least some apertures not considered extended to edge, see Fig 2B).
Regarding claim 5, Ogawa in view of Kim disclose the system of claim 1, except wherein a ratio of the area occupied by the apertures over the area of PCB outer surface ranges from about 6% to about 12%.
Strum however, teaches a similar system (Fig 3) wherein a ratio of the area
occupied by the apertures over the area of PCB outer surface ranges from about
6% to about 12% (apertures formed between 6, 7, 5 Fig 3 considered to range
between about 6% to 12%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify an area occupancy ratio of Ogawa in view of Kim at a certain range, as taught by Strum, in order to have a desired structural integrity for the system, thereby improving reliability and develop favorable spatial disposition, and, also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Ogawa in view of Kim in view of Strum discloses the system of claim 3, Ogawa teaches wherein the round dot has about a diameter about 1.3 mm (whereas, region 32 in Figs 4A-4C for example is about 1mm-par. [0134], roughly same diameter/displacement of aperture between 37).
Regarding claim 7, Ogawa in view of Kim in view of Strum discloses the system of claim 3, Ogawa teaches wherein the rod comprises horizontal rods (see P1 in Fig 2B) and vertical rods (37, Fig 4C).
Regarding claim 8, Ogawa in view of Kim in view of Strum discloses the system of claim 7, Ogawa teaches wherein the horizontal rod and vertical rods are about 4.1 mm and 3.1 mm in length respectively (whereas, region 32 in Figs 4A-4C for example is about 10mm - 1mm-par. [0134], roughly same diameter/displacement of aperture between 37 and P1, Fig 2B).
Regarding claim 9, Ogawa discloses a LED system (see par 0279), comprising: a substrate having a plurality of chipsets (substrate - portion 10; chipsets - such as "LSI" par 0108 - location of portion 51 on right side/half, Fig 2B); at least one LED mounted onto a surface of the substrate (LED - location of portion 51 on left side/half, Fig 2B; also see par 0108); and an aperture (37, Fig 4B) through the substrate is interposed between the plurality of chipsets on the substrate and the at least one LED (apertures aligned down the middle of 10, where aperture 37 interposed therebetween, Fig 2B); wherein the PCB board has a top side, a bottom side, a left side, and a right side (included sides of 10 as depicted in Figs 1, 2A for example) to form four corners (corners of 10, Fig 2A), wherein the at least one LED is distributed evenly at the first side of PCB among the four corners of the PCB board (as depicted in Fig 2A, for example) in such a way that the LED provides a digital signage when led up and controlled by the chipset on the second side PCB board (at 391/392, par 0204; also see middle of par 0185).
Ogawa discloses the claimed invention except for expressly teaching a plurality of magnets on the second side PCB board in such a way that the plurality of magnets are attachable to a support, or wherein the PCB is bendable at a radius about 360 mm, tensile strength having been decreased about 50% by having apertures on the PCB.
Kim however teaches a plurality of magnets (64, Figs 15-16) on a second side PCB board (side of 10 where PCB locates, par 0064) in such a way that the plurality of magnets are attachable to a support (15c, Fig 16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second side PCB board of Ogawa to include plurality of magnets attachable to support, as taught by Kim, in order to provide close adhesion of one surface of LED to a planar surface, thereby improving structural rigidity upon a desired plane or surface.
Furthermore, Strum teaches a similar system (Fig 3) wherein a PCB (4, Fig 3) is bendable at a radius (at RA or RB, Fig 3), tensile strength having been decreased (decreased or eliminated tensile stress/strength, col 5 lines 60-62) by having apertures on the PCB (apertures formed between 6, 7, 5 Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure bendable radius tensile strength of the PCB of Ogawa in view of Park to include a radius approximately 360mm and tensile strength decreased about 50%, as suggested by Strum, in order to control warping due to variations in coefficient thermal expansion of different materials that make up the PCB, thereby optimizing or preventing thermally induced mechanical damage by creating the radii and tensile strength, as desired, to achieve the desired outcome.
Going further, note that since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Ogawa in view of Kim in view of Strum disclose the LED system of claim 9, Ogawa teaches wherein the substrate is a PCB (last sentence, par 0002).
Regarding claim 11, Ogawa in view of Kim in view of Strum disclose the LED system of claim 10, Ogawa teaches wherein the aperture is designed to reduce tension of the PCB so that PCB is easily bent (see last sentence par 0246).
Regarding claim 12, Ogawa in view of Kim in view of Strum disclose the LED system of claim 9, Ogawa teaches wherein the aperture is filled with an insulating medium selected from a group comprising of air and a material which is softer than that of PCB board (aperture portion 37 is filled with air, see Fig 2B and 4B, for example).
Regarding claim 13, Ogawa in view of Kim in view of Strum disclose the LED system of claim 9, Ogawa teaches wherein the aperture does not extend to an edge of the PCB (at least some aperture not considered extended to edge, see Fig 2B).
Regarding claim 14, Ogawa in view of Kim in view of Strum disclose the LED system of claim 9, Ogawa teaches wherein the aperture is at least one of round dot, a rod, or a cross (aperture 37 resembles round dot, Fig 2B).
Regarding claim 15, Ogawa in view of Kim in view of Strum disclose the LED system of claim 14, Ogawa teaches wherein the rod comprises horizontal rods (see P1 in Fig 2B) and vertical rods (37 in Fig AC).
Regarding claim 16, Ogawa in view of Kim disclose the LED of claim 15, except wherein a ratio of the area occupied by the apertures over the area of PCB outer surface ranges from about 6% to about 12%.
Strum however, teaches a similar system (Fig 3) wherein a ratio of the area
occupied by the apertures over the area of PCB outer surface ranges from about
6% to about 12% (apertures formed between 6, 7, 5 Fig 3 considered to range
between about 6% to 12%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify an area occupancy ratio of Ogawa in view of Kim at a certain range, as taught by Strum, in order to have a desired structural integrity for the system, thereby improving reliability and develop favorable spatial disposition, and, also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Ogawa in view of Kim in view of Strum discloses the LED system of claim 15, Ogawa teaches wherein the round dot has about a diameter about 1.3 mm (whereas, region 32 in Figs 4A-4C for example is about 1mm-par. [0134], roughly same diameter/displacement of aperture between 37).
Regarding claim 19, Ogawa in view of Kim discloses the method of claim 18, except wherein a ratio of the area occupied by the apertures over the area of PCB outer surface ranges from about 6% to about 12%.
Strum however, teaches a similar system (Fig 3) wherein a ratio of the area
occupied by the apertures over the area of PCB outer surface ranges from about
6% to about 12% (apertures formed between 6, 7, 5 Fig 3 considered to range
between about 6% to 12%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify an area occupancy ratio at a certain
range, as taught by Strum, in order to have a desired structural integrity for the
system, thereby improving reliability and develop favorable spatial disposition,
and, also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves
only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, the method steps are necessitated by the
already modified structure of Ogawa in view of Strum above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHEN E MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-8852. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/RASHEN E MORRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841