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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/17/2026. These drawings are accepted.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanamori et al. (US 10,819,048) hereafter Kanamori.
Regarding claim 19 Kanamori, discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) connector module 10, comprising: a header housing 40 installed on an LED module P1, P2, the header housing 40 having a tab terminal 60 protruding from a coupling surface bottom surface of P1, see fig. 2); and a plug housing 20 removably attached to the header housing 40, the plug housing 20 having a receptacle terminal 25, a tab terminal coupling portion 26, and a housing-side coupling guide 62, the receptacle terminal 25 has a coupling guide 55, the tab terminal 60 is inserted in the tab terminal coupling portion 26 in contact with the receptacle terminal 25, the housing-side coupling guide 62 contacts the coupling guide 55 and guides the receptacle terminal 25 to a coupling location 26, 27.
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 1-11 and13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori et al. (US 10,819,048) hereafter Kanamori in view of Miller et al. (US 11,031,734) hereafter Miller.
Regarding claim 1, Kanamori, discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) connector module 10, comprising: a header housing 40 installed on an LED module P1, P2, the header housing 40 having a tab terminal 60 (upon assembling P1, P2 into 40 protruding from a coupling surface (bottom surface of P1, see fig. 2); and a plug housing 20 removably attached to the header housing 40, the plug housing 20 having a receptacle terminal 25 and a tab terminal coupling portion 26, the tab terminal 60 is inserted in the tab terminal coupling portion 26 in contact with the receptacle terminal 25.
Kanamori, does not discloses the tab terminal coupling portion extends through a portion of a material of the plug housing.
Miller disc loses the tab terminal coupling portion 48a, 50a extends through a portion of a base section 66 (see figs. 6-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the tab terminal coupling portion extends through a portion of a material of the plug housing as taught by Miller in order to better and consistant electrical and mechanical connection there in between and have better mechanical stability of the terminal.
Regarding claim 2, Kanamori (as modified by Miller), discloses the header housing 40 has a guide flange 42, 43 protruding at an outer side of the tab terminal 60 in a direction in which the header housing is coupled to the plug housing.
Regarding claim 3, Kanamori (as modified by Miller), discloses the plug housing 20 has a guide groove (interior space of 20) into which the guide flange 42, 43 is inserted.
Regarding claim 4, Kanamori (as modified by Miller), discloses the guide flange 42, 43 is formed along a circumference of the coupling surface.
Regarding claim 5, Kanamori (as modified by Miller), discloses the guide flange extends on a same plane as a side surface of the header housing.
Regarding claim 6, Kanamori (as modified by Miller), discloses the header housing 40 is embedded in the LED module 10 (upon assembling).
Regarding claim 7, Kanamori (as modified by Miller),discloses the plug housing 20 has a mounting portion (interior cavity of 22) on a side surface, the receptacle terminal 25 is inserted in the mounting portion (interior cavity of 22).
Regarding claim 8, Kanamori (as modified by Miller), discloses the plug housing 20 has a tab terminal coupling portion 26, 27 on a bottom surface of the plug housing 20, the tab terminal 60 passes through the tab terminal coupling portion 26, 27.
Regarding claim 9, Kanamori (as modified by Miller), discloses the receptacle terminal 25 has a contact slot 26, 27 through which the tab terminal 60 passes.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Kanamori (as modified by Miller), discloses the receptacle terminal 25 is attached to the plug housing 20 with the contact slot corresponding to the tab terminal coupling portion.
Regarding claim 11, Kanamori (as modified by Miller), discloses the receptacle terminal 25 has a coupling guide GP (see annotated fig., front portion of clamping piece 27) at a leading end in a direction on which the receptacle terminal is inserted into the plug housing, the coupling guide guides insertion of the receptacle terminal 25.
Regarding claim 13, Kanamori (as modified by Miller), discloses the plug housing 20 has a stopper 23 protruding outward from an outer side surface of the plug housing 20.
Regarding claim 14, Kanamori (as modified by Miller), discloses the stopper 20 limits a moving distance in a direction in which the plug housing 20 is coupled to the header housing 40 (in an initial stage of assembly).
Regarding claim 15, Kanamori (as modified by Miller), discloses the stopper 23 is one of a plurality of stoppers 23 formed discontinuously along an outer circumference of the plug housing 20.
Regarding claim 16, Kanamori (as modified by Miller), discloses all the claim ed limitations except for the stopper is formed at a corner portion of an outer circumference of the plug housing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the stopper is formed at a corner portion of an outer circumference of the plug housing, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 17, Kanamori (as modified by Miller),discloses the plug housing 20 has a locking portion 23 protruding outward from the outer side surface of the plug housing 23 (it is to be noted that there are 8 locking claws around the outer surface of housing 20, either some of them or all of them can be considered as stopper at the initial stage), the locking portion couples the plug housing 40 with the LED module.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori and Miller as applied to claim 14, further in view of Kang (8,622,579).
Regarding claim 18, Kanamori (as modified by Miller), discloses all the claimed limitation except for An electronic device uses the LED connector module of claim 1.
Kang discloses an illumination system uses a light emitting apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the LED connector module of Kanamori as a light emitting apparatus of Kang, in order to have ease of assembly and work as removable and replaceable assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 12, prior art of record does not disclose or teaches, the plug housing has a housing-side coupling guide that contacts the coupling guide in the mounting portion, the housing-side coupling guide forms an inclined surface guiding the receptacle terminal to a coupling location.
Regarding claim 12, prior art of record does not disclose or teaches, the housing-side coupling guide forms an inclined surface guiding the receptacle terminal to the coupling location as required in combination with other limitations of this claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/17/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 HARSHAD C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8289. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am - 5.00 pm (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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at 571-270 3119. 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.
/HARSHAD C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights