Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/247,643

ASSEMBLY FOR LIGHT MODULE EXTENSION AND ARTICULATION AND HOUSING THEREFOR

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 24, 2025
Examiner
APENTENG, JESSICA MCMILLAN
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Amp Plus Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
636 granted / 969 resolved
-2.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
68 currently pending
Career history
1037
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
59.1%
+19.1% vs TC avg
§102
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§112
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 969 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Danesh (US 2014/0254177 A1). PNG media_image1.png 744 430 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 673 528 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Danesh teaches a pull-down-assembly for use in lighting applications, wherein the pull-down-assembly comprises: a bracket (6) that is configured to be attached to a structure (2; figure 1) at a first-region of the bracket (6), wherein the structure (2) is external and separate from the pull-down-assembly (4); at least one linear-extension-subassembly (18, figure 3) that is attached to the bracket (6); and a can (5) that is attached to the at least one linear-extension-subassembly (18), wherein the can (5) is configured to house at least most of at least one lighting-module (3; figure 1); wherein the at least one linear-extension-subassembly (18) is configured to permit movement of the can (4) down or up with respect to the bracket (6). Regarding claim 2, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the first-region of the bracket (6) is located in between two opposing tabs (see figure 3) of the bracket (9). Regarding claim 3, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the first-region of the bracket (6) comprises at least one aperture (see openings in bracket 6) that passes entirely through a thickness of the bracket (6; see figure 1). Regarding claim 4, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 1, wherein when the bracket (6) is attached to the structure (2), the first-region of the bracket (6)is located below at least some portion of the structure (2). Regarding claim 5, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 1, wherein the structure is an enclosure (2 is a housing). Regarding claim 6, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least one linear-extension-subassembly (18) is attached to the bracket (6; figure 1) at a second-region of the bracket (6), wherein the second-region is distinct and separated from the first-region (see figure 1). Regarding claim 7, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 6, wherein the second-region comprises at least one tab of the bracket (6; figure 1), wherein the bracket (6; see figures 1) comprises the at least one tab, wherein the at least one tab is configured to be attached to the at least one linear-extension-subassembly (18). Regarding claim 8, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least one linear-extension-subassembly (18) is attached to the bracket (6; see figure 1) at an upper region of the at least one linear-extension-subassembly (18). Regarding claim 9, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the at least one linear-extension-subassembly (18) comprises a cover (26; see figure 1) and a descendable-ascendable-subassembly (see figure 1 ); wherein the cover is fixedly attached to the bracket (6); wherein the descendable-ascendable-subassembly is at least mostly held within the cover (26) in a retracted configuration; wherein a portion of the descendable-ascendable-subassembly is extendable out and below the cover (26) in an extended configuration (see figures 1) Regarding claim 10, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 9, wherein the cover ( 26) has an opening at a bottom of the cover (see 26 in figure 1) for the portion of the descendable-ascendable-subassembly to exit the cover (26). Regarding claim 11, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 9, wherein a region of the descendable-ascendable-subassembly always remains within the cover (10; figure 1A). Regarding claim 12, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 9, wherein the descendable-ascendable-subassembly comprises a linkage-arm (18A and 18B), wherein the linkage-arm (18A) is attached to the can (5). Regarding claim 13, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 12, wherein the linkage-arm (18A and 18B)) is attached to the can (5) in a manner that facilitates rotation of the can (5) with respect to the linkage-arm (18A and 18B) see figure 6). Regarding claim 14, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 12, wherein the linkage-arm (18A and 18B) is slidable with respect to at least one member of the descendable-ascendable-subassembly (figure 1), wherein the descendable-ascendable-subassembly comprises the at least one member (see figure 1). Regarding claim 15, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 14, wherein the linkage-arm (18A and 18B) is in direct physical communication with the at least one member of the descendable-ascendable-subassembly (see figure 1). Regarding claim 18, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to Claim 1, wherein the pull-down-assembly comprises the at least one lighting-module (3), wherein the at least one lighting-module (3; paragraph [0018] discloses a lighting module 3) is at least mostly disposed within the can (5). Regarding claim 19, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 1, wherein the pull-down-assembly comprises a trim (7); wherein the trim (7) is located under a bottom of the can (5). Regarding claim 20, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 1, wherein the can (5) does not physically touch the bracket (6) during intended operation of the pull-down-assembly (4). 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. Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danesh(US 2014/0254177 A1) in view of Stathes et al. (US 2015/0300612 A1). PNG media_image3.png 325 465 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 16, Danesh teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one linear-extension-subassembly is two separate and distinct linear-extension-subassemblies. Stathes et al. teaches wherein the at least one linear-extension-subassembly is two separate and distinct linear-extension-subassemblies (42 and 44 are separate subassemblies). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Danesh to include two separate and distinct subassemblies as taught by Stathes et al. as an alternative way and design choice to achieve a desired illumination output since variable lighting is useful in creating a desired lighting ambiance (see paragraph [0049] of Stathes et al.). Regarding claim 17, Danesh modified by Stathes et al. teaches the pull-down-assembly according to claim 16, but Ramirez is silent about wherein the two separate and distinct linear-extension-subassemblies are disposed opposite from each other with the can disposed in between the two separate and distinct linear-extension-subassemblies. Stathes et al. teaches wherein the two separate and distinct linear-extension-subassemblies are disposed opposite from each other with the can (see figure 2) disposed in between the two separate and distinct linear-extension-subassemblies (see figure 2 where 42 and 44 are two separate and distinct assemblies). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Danesh to include two separate and distinct subassemblies as taught by Stathes et al. as an alternative way and design choice to achieve a desired illumination output since variable lighting is useful in creating a desired lighting ambiance (see paragraph [0049] of Stathes et al.). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA MCMILLAN APENTENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm. 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. /JESSICA M APENTENG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875 /ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 24, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12585155
BACKLIGHT PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584605
LAMP FOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578576
FRONT LIGHTING OF A DISPLAY FOR A WEARABLE E-READER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570206
AUTOMOBILE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557703
ILLUMINATOR, ILLUMINATOR REPAIRING DEVICE, AND ILLUMINATOR REPAIRING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+18.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 969 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month