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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At present, the prior art to Shine et al. (U.S. Patent 10,274,180 B2) remains commensurate to the scope of the claims as stated by the Applicant and as broadly interpreted [MPEP 2111], which is elucidated and expounded upon below.
In response to Applicant’s arguments concerning the amended limitation, “each of the first and second connector sub-assemblies comprises an annular base,” it should be noted that Shine teaches each of a first and second connector sub-assemblies [Figure 16: (160 // 11)] have an annular base [Figure 16: (164) – the hinge is annular as depicted having a pin therethrough]. It should also be noted that Shine teaches interconnectors (11) that are annular with (221) in Figure 24 and (321) in Figure 32.
In response to Applicant’s arguments concerning the amended limitation, “wherein when the second connector assembly engages the fourth connector assembly, the first connector of the fourth connector assembly is disposed within the recess of the second connector assembly,” it should be noted that such an obvious configuration is well-known and established within the art with respect to Shine in view of Schmidt (U.S. Patent 5,816,849 A1) as explained below in the prior art rejection.
All arguments hinge on the above and have been addressed by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. 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.
Claims 10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 10-16 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,486,553 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application and patent commonly recite the same structural limitations with the exception of limitations being claimed in different claim combinations [see chart below].
Application: 18/907,168
U.S. Patent No. 11,486,553
Claims 10+12
Claim 10
Claim 13
Claim 12
Claim 14
Claim 13
Claim 15
Claim 14
Claim 16 (uses “mounting”)
Claim 15 (uses similar “canopy”)
Claim 17
Claim 16
Claims 19-20
Claims 18 (15)
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shine et al. (U.S. Patent 10,274,180 B2).
With regards to Claim 1, Shine discloses a light-emitting diode (LED module for use in a modular lighting system installed in an environment [note Figures 1-32], the LED module configured to illuminate the environment and including:
A housing (32);
A first printed circuit board (44) (PCB) disposed within the housing;
A first LED (44) disposed on the first PCB and configured to emit light [Column 7, Lines 27-30];
A connector assembly (11 // 160 // 220) extending through the housing, the connector assembly adapted to removably, mechanically, and electrically connect the LED module to another LED module or a light fixture in the modular lighting system [note Figures 1-32],
Wherein the connector assembly includes a first connector sub-assembly (11 // 161 // 221) and a second connector sub-assembly (11 // 161 // 221) electrically connected to the first connector sub-assembly, the first connector sub-assembly extending outward from the first end of the housing [note Figures 1-32], and the second connector sub-assembly extending outward from the second end of the housing [note Figures 1-32], and
Wherein each of the first and second connector sub-assemblies includes an annular base [e.g., (164 // 221)], a first connector (166 // 2414) extending outward from the annular base along a first axis, and a second connector (166 // 2414) extending outward from the annular base along a second axis different from the first axis [note Figures 16 and 22-24].
With regards to Claim 2, Shine discloses the connector assembly being rotatable within the housing and/or wherein the connector assembly is removably coupled to the housing [note Figures 1-32].
With regards to Claim 5, Shine discloses the second conductor being electrically isolated from the first connector [note Figures 1-32].
With regards to Claim 6, Shine discloses a recess defined between the first connector and the second connector [note Figure 7: (11)], the recess sized to receive a third connector of the another LED module [note Figures 1-32].
With regards to Claim 8, Shine discloses a plurality of decorative features circumferentially arranged on an exterior surface of the housing [Column 8, Line 65 – Column 9, Line 9].
With regards to Claim 22, Shine discloses when the second LED module is mechanically and electrically connected to the first LED module [note, for example, Figures 8-9], a portion of the second LED module is disposed in a recess defined by the first LED module [note, for example, Figures 8-9].
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 10, 13-17, 20, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shine et al. (U.S. Patent 10,274,180 B2) in view of Schmidt (U.S. Patent 5,816,849 A).
With regard to Claims 10 and 25, Shine discloses a modular lighting system adapted to be installed in an environment [Figures 1-32], the modular lighting system configured to illuminate the environment and including:
A first light-emitting diode (LED) module including a first housing (32), a first LED (44) carried by the first housing and configured to emit light into the environment, and a first connector assembly (11) extending through and outward from a first end of the first housing [note Figures 1-32]; and
A second LED module including a second housing (32), a second LED (44) carried by the second housing and configured to emit light into the environment, and a second connector assembly (11) extending through and outward from an end of the second housing [note Figures 1-32],
Wherein the first connector assembly is configured to mechanically and electrically connect the first LED module to a first light fixture of the modular lighting system [note Figures 1-32],
Wherein the first LED module is interchangeable with a third LED module including a third connector assembly (11) configured to mechanically and electrically connect the third LED module to both the second LED module and the first light fixture [note Figures 1-32],
Wherein the first LED module further includes a fourth connector assembly (11) extending through and outward from a second end of the first housing opposite the first end [note Figures 1-32],
Wherein the second connector assembly is configured to mechanically and electrically connect the second LED to the first LED module via engagement with the fourth connector assembly [e.g., Figure 2],
Wherein each of the second and fourth connector assemblies includes a first connector [e.g., Figures 6-7: one of the four (47)], a second connector [e.g., Figures 6-7: another one of the four (47)], and a recess defined between the first connector and the second connector [note Figures 6-7], and wherein when the second connector assembly engages the fourth connector assembly, the first connector of the fourth connector assembly interacts with the second connector assembly [note Figures 1-32].
Shine does not specifically teach when the second connector assembly engages the fourth connector assembly, the first connector of the fourth connector assembly is disposed within the recess of the second connector assembly (re: Claim 10), or vice versa, when the second connector assembly engages the fourth connector assembly, the first connector of the second assembly is disposed within the recess of the fourth connector assembly (re: Claim 25).
Schmidt teaches the well-known and established connection assembly, wherein first and second connector assemblies [note Figures 2-3] each include a first connector [(46, 48 // 42, 44) or (46 // 48)], a second connector [(42, 44 // 46, 48) or (42 // 44)], and a recess defined between the first connector and the second connector [note Figures 2-3], wherein the first connector assembly engages the second connector assembly, and the first connector of the second connector assembly is disposed within the recess of the first connector assembly.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second and fourth connector assemblies of Shine to have incorporated the first connector of the fourth connector assembly being disposed within the recess of the second connector assembly (or, vice versa, the first connector of the second connector assembly is disposed within the recess of the fourth connector assembly), as taught in principle by Schmidt, since such an obvious configuration is functionally equivalent and well-established in the art. In addition, such a modification would facilitate installation/repairs based on the clear connection of the protrusion/recess, similar to a plug and outlet.
With regards to Claim 13, Shine discloses each first connector (47) extends along a first axis and each second connector (47) extends along a second axis different from the first axis [note Figures 1-32, arbitrary/relative, as broadly interpreted].
With regards to Claim 14, Shine discloses the second connector is electrically isolated from the first connector [note Figures 1-32].
With regards to Claim 15, Shine discloses the first and second connector assemblies (11) being rotatable within the first and second housings, respectively [note Figures 1-32].
With regards to Claim 16, Shine discloses a modular lighting system [note Figures 1-32], the modular lighting system including:
A first light fixture including a first mounting assembly (10) adapted to engage a first desired surface in the environment [note Figure 2];
A second light fixture including a second mounting assembly (10) adapted to engage a second desired surface in the environment [note Figure 2];
A plurality of light-emitting diode (LED) modules (13) mechanically and electrically connected to the first mounting assembly and/or the second mounting assembly, wherein the plurality of LED modules including:
The first light-emitting diode (LED) module (13);
The second LED module (13);
Wherein the first connector assembly is configured to mechanically and electrically connect the first LED module to the first light fixture via the first mounting assembly [note Figures 2], and
Wherein the second connector assembly is configured to mechanically and electrically connect the second LED module to the first LED module or to the second light fixture via the second mounting assembly [note Figure 2].
With regards to Claim 17, Shine a hub connector (11) configured to mechanically connect but electrically isolate the first LED module and the second LED module [note Figure 7].
With regards to Claim 20, Shine discloses the first and second connector assemblies (11) being rotatable within the first and second housings, respectively [note Figures 1-32].
With regards to Claim 24, Shine discloses the second LED module is mechanically and electrically connected to the first LED module [note, for example, Figures 8-9], a portion of the second LED module is disposed in a recess defined by the first LED module [note, for example, Figures 8-9].
With regards to Claim 25, Shine discloses when the second connector assembly (11) engages the fourth
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regards to Dependent Claim 7, the Applicant has sufficiently claimed and defined the LED module, whereby the prior art fails to teach or suggest the combination of structural and functional limitations claimed in the base claims and therein to each of the first and second connector sub-assemblies comprises a canopy stem, a collar, and a ring, wherein the annular base is disposed within the collar and the ring is removably coupled to the collar such that the first and second connectors extend outward from the ring.
Claim 23 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: With regards to Independent Claims 23, the Applicant has sufficiently amended and incorporated the allowable subject matter indicated in the previous Office action filed October 27, 2025, whereby the prior art fails to teach or suggest the combination of structural and functional limitations claimed therein, specifically to the details and dispositions of the claimed elements relative to one another, and in particular to the first and second connectors extend entirely through the first and second housings, respectively.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 JASON M HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2207. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
Friday, February 6, 2026
/Jason M Han/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875