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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/08/2026 has been entered.
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 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josefowicz et al. (US 2011/0188233) in view of Negandhi et al. (US 2013/0094207).
Regarding claims 8 and 11, Josefowicz et al. discloses a thermally conductive luminaire (100, see Fig. 1, Para. 0036) comprising: a housing (cast fixture housing, see Figs. 1-3 and 14, Para. 0038-0039, 0042); and a plurality of electrical (e.g., circuit boards 154 and LED power supplies (drivers), see Figs. 3 and 7, Para. 0046) components disposed in the housing. Josefowicz et al. further discloses the housing may be die cast aluminum including, for example, aluminum grades A380, A360, A383, A413, K-alloy etc. (see Para. 0039).
However, Josefowicz et al. does not explicitly disclose the housing is polymer housing and including at least one thermally conductive filler to configure the polymer housing as a thermally conductive polymer housing, and at least one filler distinct from the thermally conductive filler, the at least one filler comprising at least one of a tensile strength filler to improve tensile strength and an impact strength filler to improve impact strength.
Negandhi et al. teaches a luminaire (1, see Fig. 2, Para. 0052) including a first and/or second housing(s) (15, see Fig. 2, Para. 0052) are comprised of thermoplastic polymer (see Para. 0016-0017, 0052-0054); and including at least one thermally conductive filler (e.g. primary thermally conductive filler) to configure the polymer housing as a thermally conductive polymer housing, and at least one filler distinct from the thermally conductive filler (e.g. secondary and tertiary thermally conductive filler, see Para. 0053-0054, 0092 and claim 5), the at least one filler comprising at least one of a tensile strength filler (e.g., carbon nanotubes, diamond, see Para. 0054) to improve tensile strength and an impact strength filler (e.g. carbon fibers, see Para. 0054, 0062, 0088, 0092) to improve impact strength (see Table 11).
Therefore, in view of Negandhi et al., it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Josefowicz et al. by forming it from a polymer housing and including a thermally conductive filler and another filler distinct from the thermally conductive filler as suggested by Negandhi et al. in order to enhance the housing’s strength, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this combination to improve the reliability and performance of the luminaire by providing a corrosion-resistant housing, both inside and outside, while also addressing the known issues associated with aluminum LED fixtures, including their high cost and substantial weight.
Regarding claim 9, Josefowicz et al. further discloses light fixture housing can operate properly within a much wider range of operating temperatures, furthermore the housing provides convection of the heat emitted from the LED engines (114a, 114b) to the atmosphere that keeps the LED junction temperature less than 40 °C above the ambient temperature furthermore (see Para. 0034, 0053).
Industrial luminaries listed by third-party agencies have an ambient rating — typically 25° C, 40° C, 55° C or 65° C
Regarding the claim limitation “an ambient temperature rating of the luminaire is at least about 55°C”, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Josefowicz et al.’s housing to satisfy the requirements of the Industrial luminaries and have an ambient rating 55°C with the device of Josefowicz et al. (as recited in claim 9), since satisfying the operational and/or regulatory requirements of a particular application would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Josefowicz et al. further discloses the plurality of electrical components (e.g., circuit boards 154 and LED power supplies (drivers), see Figs. 3 and 7, Para. 0046) includes a pair of electrical boards (circuit boards 154, see Figs. 2 and 14, Para. 0037) and a driver, the driver (LED power supplies (drivers), see Fig. 7, Para. 0040, 0043, and 0060) being mounted above and between the electrical boards.
Regarding claim 12. The teachings of Josefowicz et al. have been discussed above.
However, Josefowicz et al. is silent with respect to the impact strength filler comprises chopped carbon fiber, spherical nano-particles, or mixtures thereof.
Negandhi et al. further teaches the thermally conductive filler include carbon rich materials such as carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, diamond, natural and synthetic unexpanded graphite, natural and synthetic expanded graphite, and graphene (see Para. 0054, 0062).
Therefore, in view of Negandhi et al., it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Josefowicz et al. by including a thermally conductive filler comprising chopped carbon fiber as suggested by Negandhi et al. in order to enhance the housing’s strength, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this combination to improve the reliability and performance of the luminaire by providing a corrosion-resistant housing, both inside and outside, while also addressing the known issues associated with aluminum LED fixtures, including their high cost and substantial weight.
Regarding claim 13. The teachings of Josefowicz et al. have been discussed above.
However, Josefowicz et al. is silent with respect to the tensile strength filler comprises carbon fibers, nano-, carbon nanotubes, or mixtures thereof.
Negandhi et al. further teaches the thermally conductive filler include carbon rich materials such as carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, diamond, natural and synthetic unexpanded graphite, natural and synthetic expanded graphite, and graphene (see Para. 0054, 0062).
Therefore, in view of Negandhi et al., it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Josefowicz et al. by including a thermally conductive filler comprising chopped carbon fiber as suggested by Negandhi et al. in order to enhance the housing’s strength, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this combination to improve the reliability and performance of the luminaire by providing a corrosion-resistant housing, both inside and outside, while also addressing the known issues associated with aluminum LED fixtures, including their high cost and substantial weight.
Regarding claim 14. Josefowicz et al. further discloses a thermally conductive dielectric is used to promote maximum heat transfer away from the LED's to the aluminium base of the circuit board. Highest efficacy LED's are used for maximum light output (see Para. 0064).
However, Josefowicz et al. is silent with respect the polymer housing has a thermal conductivity of at least 0.5 W/mK.
Negandhi et al. further teaches as shown in tables 8 and 9 the total material properties includes a thermal conductivity of at least 0.5 W/mK.
Therefore, in view of Negandhi et al., it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Josefowicz et al. by forming the polymer housing to have a thermal conductivity of at least 0.5 W/mK, as suggested by Negandhi et al. in order to enhance the housing’s thermal conductivity, since satisfying the operational and/or regulatory requirements of a particular application would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15. The teachings of Josefowicz et al. have been discussed above.
However, Josefowicz et al. is silent with respect to the polymer housing has an impact strength of at least 5 KJ/m2 to about 30 KJ/m2.
Negandhi et al. further teaches as shown in tables 8 and 9 the total material properties includes an impact strength (see tables 1-13).
Therefore, in view of Negandhi et al., it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Josefowicz et al. by forming the polymer housing to have an impact strength within a desired range, as suggested by Negandhi et al. in order to enhance the housing, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 16. The teachings of Josefowicz et al. have been discussed above.
However, Josefowicz et al. is silent with respect to the polymer housing has a tensile strength of at least 40 MPa.
Negandhi et al. further teaches the polymer housing has a tensile strength (see tables 1-13).
Therefore, in view of Negandhi et al., it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Josefowicz et al. by forming the polymer housing to have a tensile strength with at least tensile strength of at least 40 MPa., as claimed in order to enhance the housing, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4-7 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the claims are allowable based on Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1, together with the persuasive argument by the applicant (Remarks/Arguments dated 03/09/2026, pgs. 5-8). Specifically, arguments regarding the difference between the prior arts and the limitation: “a first plurality of clips engaging a bottom of the electrical board (ii) a second plurality of clips engaging a top of the electrical board, and (iii) a reflector for redirecting the light emitted from the light source, the reflector mounted to the housing using the second plurality of clips, the second plurality of clips defining slots that receive mounting arms extending from the reflector to hold the reflector in place in the housing” These claimed structural and functional features are not taught nor suggested by the prior arts. Accordingly, as amended, independent claim 1 is allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8-16 have been considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments that that the Office has not established that an increase in tensile strength or impact resistance is attributable to any particular component of the resin, and that Negandhi merely reports measured properties for various compositions without identifying a particular filler as responsible for the measured increase, the Applicant is respectfully advised that products of identical structure or chemical composition, or produced by identical or substantially identical processes, cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977), and In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01. In this case, Applicant’s discloses the tensile strength filler comprising, for example, carbon fibers, nano-diamonds, carbon nanotubes, or mixtures thereof and the impact strength filler can comprise carbon nanotubes, carbon fiber, or alumina (see Para. 0034, 0035). Negandhi discloses identical filler (carbon nanotubes, diamond, carbon fibers, see Para. 0054, 0062, 0088, 0092) as applicants. Therefore, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims (i.e. an increase in tensile strength and impact resistance) are necessarily present in Negandhi.
Furthermore, Negandhi discloses establish, by experimental isolation, that a particular filler independently causes a particular increase in tensile strength or impact resistance. Rather, the rejection relies upon Negandhi’s teaching that thermoplastic compositions may include, in addition to a thermally conductive filler system, other additives/components and that the resulting compositions exhibit measurable tensile and impact properties. In particular, Negandhi expressly describes thermally conductive thermoplastic compositions containing a thermoplastic polymer, a thermally conductive filler system, and additional components. The thermally conductive filler system may include graphite, metal oxides, ceramics, carbon blacks, or fibers. Negandhi further provides numerous exemplary formulations and reports tensile stress, tensile modulus, and impact strength for the resulting compositions. See, e.g., Negandhi, Table 5.
Thus, Negandhi demonstrates that the mechanical properties of the thermoplastic composition are considered in selecting and formulating the components of the composition; it is not necessary for the reference to expressly attribute every measured property to a single constituent in order for the reference to provide a teaching relevant to the claimed composition.
In response to applicant's arguments that Negandhi distinguishes “modifiers” from “fillers,” and therefore does not teach using a filler distinct from the thermally conductive filler to increase strength, the applicant is advised 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, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968). In this case, Negandhi expressly identifies thermally conductive fillers as one category of components and separately discloses other components, including additional particulate materials and fibers, that may be incorporated into the thermoplastic composition. For example, Negandhi identifies graphite, metal oxides, ceramics, carbon blacks, and fibers as suitable materials for the thermally conductive filler system and provides formulations containing multiple such materials. Moreover, the rejection does not rely upon characterizing an impact modifier itself as the claimed “filler.” Rather, the rejection relies upon the broader teaching of modifying the polymer composition to include an additional component, distinct from the thermally conductive filler, to obtain desired mechanical properties. To the extent the claim requires that the additional component specifically be a “filler,” the relevant question is whether the applied references, considered as a whole, teach or suggest incorporating such an additional filler into the polymer composition not whether Negandhi uses the word “filler” every time it discusses an improvement in a mechanical property. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to form the polymer housing would have had reason to consider the formulation teachings of Negandhi, including the incorporation of additional filler materials/components, when selecting a thermoplastic composition having the desired combination of thermal and mechanical properties.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that Negandhi does not expressly identify a particular filler as independently responsible for an increase in tensile strength or impact resistance does not overcome the rejection. Nor does Negandhi’s distinction between fillers and modifiers establish that a composition containing a thermally conductive filler cannot also contain another filler distinct from the thermally conductive filler. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tsion Tumebo whose telephone number is 571-270-1668. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSION TUMEBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights