Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/271,793

HIGH LUMINOUS-EFFICACY LINEAR LIGHTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 17, 2025
Examiner
TON, ANABEL
Art Unit
2875
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Xiamen Pvtech Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
1086 granted / 1243 resolved
+19.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
1253
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
§102
42.8%
+2.8% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1243 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al (2020/0340633 “Chen”). Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a luminous-efficacy linear lighting device(10), comprising: a tubular light cover (12)having a light-emitting portion (12)and a light-shielding portion(11), wherein a light-emitting surface of the light-emitting portion is a curved surface(figs. 4-6), a bottom of the light-emitting portion has a lower opening(opening present in Fig. 1), a top of the light-shielding portion has an upper opening (slit on the top of 11, Fig. 11), the bottom of the light-emitting portion is connected to the top of the light-shielding portion (as seen in figs. 4,5,6 and 10), and a width of the bottom of the light-emitting portion is greater than a width of the top of the light-shielding portion(as seen in figs. 4,5,6 and 10); a support plate (plate electronically connected to light source 20 and below driver 30, fig. 4, and, plate electronically connected to light source 20 and below driver 30, Fig. 5) disposed within the light-shielding portion and adjacent to the upper opening; and a light source board disposed on one side of the support plate and facing the light-emitting portion.(figs. 4 and 5). Regarding claim 2, the tubular light cover is made of plastic(Para. 0012). Regarding claim 3, a power module (30) disposed on another side of the support plate and within the light-shielding portion, wherein the power module is electrically connected to the light source board (Figs. 4-6. Para. 0085). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al in view of Purdy (2015/03454755). Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chen does not disclose a base, wherein the tubular light cover is disposed on the base. Purdy discloses “Fig 4 – base 122 and tubular light cover 120, Claim 4 “The LED linear lamp assemblage of claim 2, wherein the elongate tube comprises a base portion to which is affixed the circuit board and a transparent or translucent cover that connects to the base portion above the LEDs on the circuit board and wherein the joiner unit comprises a section of resilient material that engages with an outside of the base portion.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tubular light cover of Chen to be disposed on a base, as taught by Purdy, since one of ordinary skill would have recognized that disposing the tubular light cover on a base in would provide a stable placement for the tubular light cover. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-10 are 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 prior art cited of record does not anticipate individually or teach in combination the limitations of “ a base, wherein the tubular light cover is disposed on the base”, in claim 4. The prior art cited of record does not anticipate individually or teach in combination the limitations of “two end caps and two safety ropes, wherein the end caps are respectively disposed at two ends of the tubular light cover and are respectively connected to two ends of the base via the two safety ropes”, in claim 8. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kearny et al discloses translucent end caps for a luminaire that connect to hanging supports (Fig.3); Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANABEL TON whose telephone number is (571)272-2382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00pm -6:00pm (EST). 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. /ANABEL TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 17, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595904
MODULAR TRACK LIGHTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597570
LIGHT-EMITTING KEYBOARD AND BACKLIGHT MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590690
LIGHTING FIXTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590694
Connecting Assembly for Decorative Light
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590683
SIMULATED FLAME LAMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
87%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+2.6%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1243 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