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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on November 3 of 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's preliminary amendment, filed concurrently with the instant application on November 3 of 2025, has been entered. Claims 1-11 have been amended. No claim has been cancelled, or added. Claims 1-11 are still pending in this application, with only claim 1 being independent.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment, per MPEP 606.01. Any changes to claim scope at time of allowance may also result in an additional title amendment.
At this time, the following title is suggested: LED Light Module with Semi-Circular of Arched Shaped Electrical Connectors.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language and format of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In certain patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or use thereof. If the new technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the abstract should mention by way of example the preferred modification or alternative.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
(2) if an article, its method of making;
(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
(5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses phrases which could be implied, and fails to concisely describe the subject matter of applicant’s invention. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the originally filed abstract as indicated below.
ABSTRACT. A light module includes a carrier; a plurality of light emitting ddiodes (LEDs) arranged on a first side; a first connector element; a fastening element the fastening element included in the first connector; and an electrical connector arrangementand including a second connector element
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because they appear to be narrative in form using overly intricate or verbose language which might be considered unclear, and include many grammatical, syntax, and/or typographical errors (see proposed claim amendment, below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 is indefinite as it is not clear if the recitation “wherein the foil comprises electrical tracks connecting the plurality of LEDs to the first connector element through a fastening element” (see lines 13 and 14) is attempting to introduce a new “fastening element” in addition to that previously defined (see line 7), or simply attempting to refer back to such previously defined “fastening element”. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, the “fastening element” of claim 14 as being one and the same as the “fastening element” defined in line 7.
Independent claim 1 is further indefinite as the meaning of the phrase “the fastening element is an extension tab of the foil, the extension tab having a semi-circular or arched form” (see lines 15 and 16) could not be readily ascertained within the context of the claim. The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, the “fastening element” being an “extension tab” having a semi-circular or arch shape, and the “first connector” being fastened to the “second side” of the “carrier” to maintain the semi-circular or arch shape of the “extension tab”.
Dependent claims 2-11 are rejected for their dependency on indefinite independent claim 1, as detailed above.
Dependent claim 11is indefinite as it is not clear if the recitation “the luminaire arrangement further comprises at least one of a wall and a ceiling” requires the “luminaire arrangement” as necessarily including at least one of each a wall and a ceiling, or simply at least one of a wall or a ceiling. The applicant is advised that, it has been held by the courts that the use of the phrase “at least one of” in combination with the conjunction “and” defines a conjunctive list requiring at least one of each of the listed elements; while “at least one of” in combination with the conjunction “or” defines a disjunctive list requiring only one of the listed elements. See Superguide Corp. v DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (69 UPQ2d 1865) (fed. Cir. 2004). The applicant is further advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, the claimed “luminaire arrangement” as including simply at least one of a wall or a ceiling.
Proposed Claim Amendments
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims as indicated below. The applicant is advised that, if the proposed amendments are accepted, all claims must be carefully reviewed to reflect and/or accommodate the new language.
CLAIM 1. A light module[[,]] comprising:
a carrier having a mounting plate defining a first side and a second side opposite the first side, and a foil arranged on the mounting plate, the foil forming electrical tracks;
a plurality of light emitting diodes, LEDs, arranged on the first side of the mounting plate,
a first connector element arranged on the second side of the mounting plate, the first connector element comprising a fastening element connected to the LEDs by the electrical tracks, and
an electrical connector arrangement electrically connectable to the carrier and comprising a second connector element releasably attachable to the first connector element,
wherein the fastening element is an extension tab of the foil, the extension tab having a semi-circular or arc shape extending around a portion of an edge of the carrier, with the first connector fastened to the second side of the mounting plate to maintain the semi-circular or arch shape of the extension tab.
CLAIM 11. A luminaire arrangement comprising the luminaire according to claim 9, or a ceiling, and a recess formed in the at least one of a wall or a ceiling, [[and ]]wherein the luminaire is arranged in the recess.
Claim Rejections Based on Prior Art
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 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.
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 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PLÖTZ et al. (U.S. Pat. 8,593,390) in view of SANFORD et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,831,573).
Regarding independent claim 1 (as best understood), PLOTZ et al. discloses a light module 1 (as seen in Figure 5A) including a carrier 6 (as seen in Figure 5A) having a first side (top side, as seen in Figure 5A) and a second side (bottom side, as seen in Figure 5B) opposite the first side (as seen in Figures 5A and 5B), and a plurality of light emitting diodes 3a/3b/3c (as seen in Figure 5A), LEDs, arranged on the first side of the carrier 6 (as seen in Figure 5A) and electrically connected to the carrier 6 (required for operation of the device, as evidenced by Figure 5A), wherein the carrier 6 comprises a mounting plate 2 (as seen in Figure 5A) and a foil 2 (circuit board, as seen in Figure 5A) arranged on the mounting plate 2 (as evidenced by Figure 5A), wherein the foil includes electrical tracks (circuit traces inherent of all circuit boards) connecting the plurality of LEDs 3a/3b/3c to electrical elements 4 (as seen in Figure 5B) provided on the second side of the carrier 6 (as seen in Figure 5B), the electrical tracks having an extension portion (portion of element 2 extending from the top side to the bottom side of element 6, as seen in Figures 5A and 5B), the extension portion having a semi-circular or arched form extending around a portion of an edge of the carrier 6 (as seen in Figures 5A and 5B).
PLOTZ et al. fails to disclose a first connector element arranged on the second side of the carrier 6, the first connector element including a fastening element, and an electrical connector arrangement electrically connectable to the carrier 6 and including a second connector element releasably attachable to the first connector element, the electrical tracks connecting the LEDs 3a/3b/3c to the first connector element through the fastening element, wherein the fastening element is an extension tab of the foil, and wherein the first connector element is fastened to the second side of the carrier 6 to maintain the shape of the extension tab.
However, SANFORD et al. discloses a connector 110 (as seen in Figure 2) including a first connector element 111 (as seen in Figure 1) arranged on a side of a carrier 101 (as seen in Figure 1) including a plurality of electrical components (see lines 1-3 of column 4), the first connector element 111 including a fastening element 111-1 (as seen in Figure 2), and an electrical connector arrangement 121-1 (as seen in Figure 2) electrically connectable to the carrier, and including a second connector element 121-1 (as seen in Figure 2) releasably attachable to the first connector element 111 (see lines 21-26 of column 4), such that electrical tracks connect electronic devices to the first connector element 111 through the fastening element 111-1 (see lines 14-17 of column 4), and wherein the first connector element 111 is fastened to the side of the carrier 101 to maintain the shape of an arch-shaped tab 115 extending around a portion of an edge of the carrier 101 (as seen in Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Prior Art connector 110 of SANFORD et al. with the patented light module 1 of PLOTZ et al., according to the known methods taught by SANFORD et al., to yield the predictable result of providing the lighting module 1 of PLOTZ et al. with means to releasably interconnect the plurality of LEDs 3a//3b/3c with the electrical elements 4 (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397).
Regarding dependent claim 2 (as best understood), PLOTZ et al. individually disclose, or suggests when combined with SANFORD et al., all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, except explicitly disclosing an electrical cable connected to the second connector element.
However, the applicant is advised that it has been long held by the courts that, in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the light module 1 of PLOTZ et al., as previously modified by SANFORD et al., necessarily included an electrical cable connected to the second connector element 121-1, as such electrical conductor (i.e. the claim electrical cable) is required to complete the circuit of the light module 1.
Regarding dependent claim 3 (as best understood), PLOTZ et al. individually discloses, or suggests when combined with SANFORD et al., all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, and both PLOTZ et al. and SANFORD et al. further disclosing the electrical connection between the sides of the disclosed carrier (elements 6 in PLOTZ et al., and 101 in SANDFORD et al.) being arranged to a side of such carrier. Therefore, arranging the electrical cable to a side of the carrier would had naturally resulted from the disclosed arrangement.
Regarding dependent claim 4 (as best understood), PLOTZ et al. individually disclose, or suggests when combined with SANFORD et al., all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, with SANFORD et al. further disclosing a click mechanism 642 (as seen in Figure 10B), wherein the first connector element 111 is releasably attachable to the second side of the carrier 6 via the click mechanism 642 (as seen in Figure 10A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Prior Art click mechanism 642 of SANFORD et al. with the patented light module 1 of PLOTZ et al., according to the known methods taught by SANFORD et al., to yield the predictable result of providing a mechanically secured connection between the first and second connector elements 111/121-1 (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397).
Regarding dependent claim 5 (as best understood), PLOTZ et al. individually disclose, or suggests when combined with SANFORD et al., all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, except the carrier 6 having a length, L, and wherein the first connector element is arranged at a length, P, of the carrier 6, wherein 0.45-L < P < 0.55-L.
However, it has long been held by the courts that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to arrange the first connector element 111 at a position between 0.45 and 0.55 the length of the carrier 6, to achieve the predictable result of positioning the first connector element 111 as necessitated by the specific spatial requirements of a given application.
Regarding dependent claim 6 (as best understood), PLOTZ et al. individually disclose, or suggests when combined with SANFORD et al., all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, with SANFORD et al. further disclosing the first connector element 111 and the second connector element 121-1 including a mechanism for mating attachment (as seen in Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Prior Art mating attachment mechanism of SANFORD et al. with the patented light module 1 of PLOTZ et al., according to the known methods taught by SANFORD et al., to yield the predictable result of providing a mechanically secured connection between the first and second connector elements 111/121-1 (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397).
Regarding dependent claim 7 (as best understood), PLOTZ et al. individually disclose, or suggests when combined with SANFORD et al., all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, with SANFORD et al. further disclosing the mechanism for mating attachment is a click mechanism 642 (as seen in Figure 10A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Prior Art click mechanism 642 of SANFORD et al. with the patented light module 1 of PLOTZ et al., according to the known methods taught by SANFORD et al., to yield the predictable result of providing a mechanically secured connection between the first and second connector elements 111/121-1 (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397).
Regarding dependent claim 8 (as best understood), PLOTZ et al. individually disclose, or suggests when combined with SANFORD et al., all the limitations of the claim, with PLOTZ et al. further disclosing a lens 20 (as seen in Figure 7) arranged to optically influence light emitted from the plurality of LEDs 3a/3b/c of the light module 1 (as seen in Figure 6).
Regarding dependent claim 9 (as best understood), PLOTZ et al. individually disclose, or suggests when combined with SANFORD et al., all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, with PLOTZ et al. further disclosing a luminaire having a luminaire housing (see lines 26-30 of column 2) and a light module 1 (as seen in Figure 5A), with the light module 1 attachable (i.e., capable of being attached) to the luminaire housing (as evidenced by lines 26-30 of column 2).
Regarding dependent claim 11 (as best understood), PLOTZ et al. individually disclose, or suggests when combined with SANFORD et al., all the limitations of the claim, as previously detailed, except a luminaire arrangement including the luminaire, at least one of a wall and a ceiling, a recess formed in the one of the wall or ceiling, such that the luminaire is arranged in the recess.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the use and advantages of providing lighting fixtures (e.g., luminaries), specifically those including a plurality of LEDs, within a recess in a wall or ceiling, are old and well known in the illumination art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to simply position the luminaire of PLOTZ et al. and SANFORD et al. within a recess located in a wall or ceiling, to obtain the predictable result of providing recessed illumination for a desired space. (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanson et al. (U.S. Pat. 4,695,258), Gardner (U.S. Pat. 4,718,859), Kabadi (U.S. Pat. 4,850,883), Gordon et al. (U.S. Pat. 4,913,656), Kao (U.S. Pat. 6,017,222), Bachl et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,299,337), Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. 7,462,035), Hsiao et al. (U.S. Pat. 8,777,437), Tischler et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,506,633), Malek et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,888,562), and Wang et al. (U.S. Pat. 10,581,183) disclose flexible circuit connection arrangements including a flexible electrically conducting substrate, first and second connector elements provided proximate one end of the conducting substrate and configured to mesh together to provide electrical connection between the conducting substrate and one side of a circuit board, and third and fourth connector elements provided proximate and opposite end of the conducting substrate and configured to mesh together to provide electrical connection between the conducting substrate and another side of the circuit board. Some of the flexible circuit connection arrangements are provided within LED light modules.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Applicant teaches a luminaire including a housing; a light module having a mounting plate; conductive traces arranged on the mounting plate; a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) arranged on a first side of the mounting plate; a first connector element arranged on the second side of the mounting plate, and having a fastening element electrically connected to the LEDs by the conductive traces; a driver configured to supply power to the light module; an accommodation portion formed in the housing and arrange to receive the driver; and a second connector element releasably attachable to the first connector element, such that with the first connector fastened to the second side of the mounting plate a portion of the fastening element extending around an edge of the carrier as a semi-circular or arch shape. The light module is arranged to cover the accommodation portion, and the accommodation portion being accessible from a front side of the luminaire.
While the use and advantages of LED luminaires are old and well known in the art (as evidenced by the documents already made of record), no prior art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all of the features of the applicants’ invention. Specifically, the closest Prior Art teachings, PLOTZ et al. in combination with SANFORD et al., teaches most of the limitations of the claims (as previously detailed), but fails to reasonably disclose the claimed arrangement of the driver, accommodation portion and lighting module; and no reasonable motivation could be found for such arrangement beyond the teachings found in applicant's own disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAEL NEGRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ISMAEL NEGRON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights