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 .
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claim 60 remains rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,121.
Claims 64, 70, 71, 72, 74, and 76 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No.12,016,121.
Claim 68 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No.12,016,121.
Claim 69 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No.12,016,121. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 61 – 63, and 65 – 67 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,121 in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0252810 (“Holec ‘810“).
Regarding claim 61, Holec 12,016,121 does not claim the boards being coupled at a 90° angle. Holec ‘810 teaches (see [0072]) that angles Theta 1 and Theta 2 can be 90° therefore the first circuit board assemblies can be coupled to the second circuit board assembly at a 90° angle, and the second circuit board assembly is coupled to the third circuit board assembly at a 90°angle. One would be motivated to modify the boards to meet the customer’s mating electrical connections in order to gain the market share associated with that customer.
Regarding claims 62 and 63, Holec recites the invention substantially as claimed except for the polygonal shape being an open or a closed polygonal shape. However, Holec ‘810 teaches boards being arranged in an open or a closed polygonal shape (a two board arrangement as seen in Figure 3 is an open triangle, and see Fig. 8 which is a closed dodecagon). It would have been obvious to modify the shape of the interconnectable circuit board array being an open or a closed polygonal shape as taught by Holec ‘810, because this allows the boards to be shaped as required by a user, increasing the market share for the assembly.
Regarding claim 65 – 67, Holec 12,016,121 does not recite the first circuit board assembly, the second circuit board assembly and the third circuit board assembly are arranged in the polygonal shape, wherein the polygonal shape is a rectangle. Holec ‘810 teaches a third circuit board assembly, wherein the first circuit board assembly, the second circuit board assembly and the third circuit board assembly are arranged in the polygonal shape, wherein the polygonal shape is a rectangle (see [0072, the angle between boards may be 90 degrees making the three board assembly an open rectangle, and see Fig. 15); and Holec ‘810 teaches wherein the first circuit board assembly is coupled to the second circuit board assembly at a 90 degree angle, and the second circuit board assembly is coupled to the third circuit board assembly at a 90 degree angle (see [0072); and Holec ‘810 teaches wherein the first circuit board assembly is coupled to the second circuit board assembly at a 90 degree angle, and the second circuit board assembly is located in the same plane as the third circuit board assembly (when bent the boards are in a plane, and the angle between boards may be 90 degrees, see [0072]). It would have been obvious to modify the angle of the board as taught by Holec ‘810, because this enables arrangements of the boards that meets customers’ demands for shaped lighting arrangements and gains market share associated with that customer.
Claims 73, 75, and 77 – 79 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,121 in view of Holec ‘810.
Regarding claim 73, Holec ‘810 teaches (see [0072]) that angles Theta 1 and Theta 2 can be 90° therefore the first circuit board assemblies can be coupled to the second circuit board assembly at a 90° angle, and the second circuit board assembly is coupled to the third circuit board assembly at a 90°angle. It would have been obvious to modify the angle between boards to meet the customers mating electrical connections in order to gain the market share associated with that customer.
Regarding claim 75, Holec ‘810 teaches a plurality of coupled boards, each having at least one light emitting diode disposed thereon. It would have been obvious to provide each board with a light emitting diode in order to provide an expansive lighting display as required by a customer.
Regarding claim 77, Holec ‘810 teaches the first lateral board to board connector and the second lateral board to board connector each comprise: a first lateral side conductor; a second lateral side conductor; and a curved conductor connecting the first lateral side conductor with the second lateral side conductor (see the first and second straight portions of 114 engaging pads of the board, and the curved intermediate portion, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to provide the conductor portions as taught by Holec ‘810 because this allows the conductor to maintain a strong connection to the board pads with the lateral portions, while allowing the boards to be positioned as desired due to the curved intermediate portion.
Regarding claim 78, Holec ‘810 teaches the first lateral side conductor of the first lateral board to board connector is electrically coupled to the first electrically conductive pad, and the first lateral side conductor of the second lateral board to board connector is electrically coupled to the second electrically conductive pad (see Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to couple the conductors to pads, because this type of connection is simple to manufacture and also simple to repair.
Regarding claim 79, Holec ‘810 teaches at least one light emitting diode 142 disposed on the interconnectable circuit board between the first longitudinal edge and the second longitudinal edge (see at least [0057]). It would have been obvious to provide each board with a light emitting diode in order to provide an expansive lighting display as required by a customer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/24/2026, with respect to the modification to the interconnection structures of Holec have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of claims 60 – 69 and 76 – 79 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAUL D BAILLARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-0676. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571) 272-2009.
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.
/PAUL D BAILLARGEON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/renee s luebke/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
