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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
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).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 60 is 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 skilled would be motivated to modify the boards to meet the customers 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.
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 60 – 69 and 76 – 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holec ‘810.
Regarding claim 60, Holec ‘810 discloses an interconnectable circuit board array 100 for lighting applications comprising:
a plurality of circuit board assemblies 102, the circuit board assemblies comprising
a first longitudinal edge as seen in Figure 15, and
a second longitudinal edge as seen in Figure 15,
a plurality of board to board connectors 112, the board to board connectors comprising
a first side board to board connector, wherein the first side board to board connector is configured to provide electrical communication between a first circuit board assembly from amongst the plurality of circuit board assemblies and a second circuit board assembly from amongst the plurality of circuit board assemblies (see Fig. 15); and
a second side board to board connector, wherein the second lateral side board to board connector is configured to provide electrical communication between the first circuit board assembly and the second circuit board assembly (see Fig. 15);
wherein the second lateral edge of the first circuit board assembly and the first lateral edge of the second circuit board assembly define a gap between the first circuit board assembly and the second circuit board assembly (See Fig. 15), the gap being bridged by the first side board to board connector and the second lateral side board to board connector;
wherein the plurality of board to board connectors are configured so that the first circuit board assembly and the second circuit board assembly can be bent in a transverse plane with respect to one another to form an angle while allowing for electrical communication between the first circuit board assembly and the second circuit board assembly (the flexibility of 112 enables such a bending); and
wherein the plurality of circuit board assemblies are configured in a polygonal shape (see the dodecagon in Fig. 8 and the rectangle in Fig. 15).
Holec discloses the lateral edges of the circuit board assemblies defining a gap with the side connector therebetween, not the longitudinal edges.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the interconnectable circuit board of Holec by providing the second longitudinal edge of the first circuit board assembly and the first longitudinal edge of the second circuit board assembly define a gap between the first circuit board assembly and the second circuit board assembly, the gap being bridged by the first lateral side board to board connector; wherein the second longitudinal edge of the second circuit board assembly and the first longitudinal edge of the third circuit board assembly first and second longitudinal edges, because rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 61, Holec ‘810 discloses wherein the first circuit board assembly is coupled to the second circuit board assembly at a 90 degree angle (see [0072]).
Regarding claim 62, Holec ‘810 discloses wherein the polygonal shape is an open polygonal shape (two connected boards as seen in Figure 3, and the boards may be angled as seen in Figure 3 and explained in [0072], resulting in an open triangle shape).
Regarding claim 63, Holec ‘810 discloses herein the polygonal shape is a closed polygonal shape (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 64, Holec discloses three boards and discloses the boards being at an angle to one another, but does not disclose the polygonal shape as a triangle. However, it would have been obvious to modify the board assemblies with different type of configurations since applicant has presented no explanation that this particular configuration is significant or are anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces between edges.
Regarding claim 65, Holec ‘810 discloses 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).
Regarding claim 66, Holec ‘810 discloses 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).
Regarding claim 67, Holec ‘810 discloses 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]).
Regarding claim 68, Holec ‘810 discloses a plurality of light emitting diodes 142, wherein the plurality of light emitting diodes is disposed on the plurality of circuit board assemblies (see at least [0057]).
Regarding claim 69, Holec ‘810 discloses wherein the plurality of board to board connectors provide both electrical communication and structural support (see Figs. 8 and 15).
Regarding claim 76, Holec ‘810 discloses an interconnectable circuit board 102 configured to be coupled with other circuit boards to form an array for lighting applications, the interconnectable circuit board comprising :
a first longitudinal edge, the first longitudinal edge comprising a first electrically conductive pad 104 and a second electrically conductive pad 104;
a second longitudinal edge, the second longitudinal edge comprising a third electrically conductive pad 104; and
a fourth electrically conductive pad 104;
a first lateral board to board connector 112 coupled to the first electrical conductive pad and extending across the first edge, wherein the first lateral side board to board connector is configured to provide electrical communication between the first electrically conductive pad of the interconnectable circuit board and a first electrically conductive pad of a second circuit board when the first lateral board to board connector 112 is coupled to the first electrically conductive pad of the second circuit board; and a second lateral board to board connector 112 coupled to the second electrical conductive pad and extending across the first edge,
wherein the second lateral side board to board connector is configured to provide electrical communication between the second electrically conductive pad of the interconnectable circuit board and a second electrically conductive pad of the second circuit board when the second lateral board to board connector is coupled to the second electrically conductive pad of the second circuit board; wherein the first lateral board to board connector and the lateral second board to board connector are configured so that the interconnectable circuit board and the second circuit board can be bent around an axis that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the interconnectable circuit board with respect to one another to form an angle while allowing for electrical communication between the interconnectable circuit board and the second circuit board.
Holec ‘810 does not disclose the electrical conductive pads extending across the longitudinal edge. However, it would have been obvious to modify the interconnectable circuit board of Holec by providing the electrical conductive pads extending across the longitudinal edge instead of the lateral edge, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 77, Holec ‘810 discloses 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).
Regarding claim 78, Holec ‘810 discloses 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).
Regarding claim 79, Holec ‘810 discloses 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 76 that Holec ‘810 does not disclose bending around an axis parallel to a longitudinal axis. Examiner cannot concur. Functional language must result in a structure difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, the claims recite that the connectors “are configured so that…” the board assemblies “can be bent around an axis that is parallel …”. This is functional language and is satisfied by Holec ‘810 because Holec ‘810 is capable of performing the recited functional language.
Conclusion
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 2833
/renee s luebke/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2833