Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/519,411

Integrated Optical Switch Having Doped Fiber/Waveguide Amplifiers Packaged in A Transposer

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 04, 2021
Examiner
CHU, CHRIS H
Art Unit
2874
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Mellanox Technologies Ltd.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
63%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
345 granted / 650 resolved
-14.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
694
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
74.2%
+34.2% vs TC avg
§102
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
§112
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 650 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 20, 2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment Applicant’s Amendment filed December 20, 2025 has been fully considered and entered. 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 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 of this title, 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 13-15, 17, 18 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Onaka (US 2018/0254832 A1) in view of Frolov et al. (WO 2004/072691 A2), further in view of Jiang (CN 107533196 A). Regarding claims 13 and 17, Onaka discloses an optical transposer (916 in Figs. 1A-1B) comprising: a first waveguide (“optical fiber” connected to 923), wherein a first end of the first waveguide connects to the doped fiber in an optical amplifier (923); a second waveguide (“optical fiber” connected to 915), wherein a first end of one of the second waveguide connects to a photonic circuit (915); a third waveguide (“optical fiber” connected to 921), wherein a first end of one of the third waveguide connects to the output end of a pump laser (921); and a wavelength division multiplexer (922), wherein the second waveguide is multiplexed with the third waveguide into the first waveguide (paragraph 0048). Still regarding claims 13 and 17, Onaka teaches the claimed invention except for an optical splitter. Frolov discloses a planar lightwave circuit (606 in Fig. 6; paragraph 0048); an optical splitter (620) supported by the PLC and connected to a laser output fiber (609) into which a pump laser (605) emits pump light comprising a first wavelength, wherein an input end of the optical splitter is configured to receive the pump light having the first wavelength and wherein output ends of the optical splitter are configured to carry divided pump light at the first wavelength (splitter 620 is a “power splitter”). Frolov further discloses a plurality of first (621, 622), second (607, 608) and third (waveguides connected to output of 620) waveguides defined by the PLC and a plurality of multiplexers (618, 619) wherein one of the plurality of second waveguides is multiplexed with one of the plurality of third waveguides into one of the plurality of first waveguides, respectively. Since both of the inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use an optical splitter as disclosed by Frolov in the device of Onaka for the purpose of processing multiple beams or wavelengths in a compact, robust device. Still regarding claims 13 and 17, the proposed combination of Onaka and Frolov teaches the claimed invention except for a plurality of mode conversion structures. Jiang discloses a plurality of mode conversion structures (651 in Fig. 6; 751 in Fig. 7) disposed between a plurality of waveguides (610) and a photonic circuit (620) and configured to transform a mode size of each of the waveguides to a mode size of the photonic circuit. Jiang further discloses the diameters of the mode conversion structures are tapered such that a diameter of the plurality of waveguides is reduced to a diameter suitable to the photonic integrated circuit. Since all of the inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a plurality of mode conversion structures as disclosed by Jiang in the device of the proposed combination of Onaka and Frolov for the purpose of improving coupling efficiency. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious for the mode conversion structures to be supported by the PLC in order to form a compact, robust device. Regarding claim 14, Onaka discloses the wavelength division multiplexer (922) comprises a first terminal, a second terminal, and a third terminal, wherein the first terminal connects to a second end of the first waveguide which connects to the doped fiber (932); the second terminal connects to a second end of the second waveguide from the photonic circuit (915); the third terminal connects to the third waveguide from the laser (921); and wherein the third waveguide comprises a first signal having a second wavelength, and wherein the first fiber comprises a second signal, wherein the second signal is an amplified first signal, and wherein the second signal comprises the second wavelength (923 is an amplifying fiber which produces a second signal, and the wavelength is not disclosed as changing). Regarding claim 15, Onaka discloses the first waveguide is doped in Fig. 1B and paragraph 0111. Regarding claim 18, the proposed combination of Onaka, Frolov and Jiang teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating a second pump laser. However, additional/second pump lasers are ubiquitous in the art of optical signals, and Frolov discloses a second pump waveguide in Fig. 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second pump laser at the first wavelength in order to provide redundancy or increased pump power. Regarding claim 21, Jiang in view of the rejection above, further discloses the plurality of mode conversion structures comprise one or more grooves or fiber array interfaces (661 in Fig. 6) configured to transform the mode size of each of the second waveguides to the mode size of the photonic circuit. Regarding claims 22 and 23, Frolov in view of the rejection above, further discloses one or more passive optical circuit elements (623, 624) configured to enable manipulation of the emitted light from the pump laser and the optical transposer is further configured for optical isolation, filtering, and/or polarization management (paragraph 0048 describes how light emitted from the pump laser 605 passes through pump-kill filters 623, 624). Regarding claim 24, the proposed combination of Onaka, Frolov and Jiang teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating optical signals received by the optical transposer from the photonic circuit via the plurality of second waveguides are directed to the optical amplifier via the plurality of first waveguides; and optical signals received by the optical transposer from the optical amplifier via the plurality of first waveguides are directed to the photonic circuit via the plurality of second waveguides. However, pump and signal light that can travel in opposite directions to form a backward pumped amplifier are ubiquitous in the art of optical signals, as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optical signals received by the optical transposer from the photonic circuit via the plurality of second waveguides are directed to the optical amplifier via the plurality of first waveguides; and optical signals received by the optical transposer from the optical amplifier via the plurality of first waveguides are directed to the photonic circuit via the plurality of second waveguides in order to increase the versatility of the device. Regarding claim 25, Frolov in view of the rejection above, further discloses a substrate (606) forming the PLC comprising one of glass, quartz, fused silica, and plastics in paragraph 0048. Regarding claim 26, Frolov in view of the rejection above, further discloses the PLC is two-dimensional in Fig. 6. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-12, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562. Chris H. Chu /CHRIS H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 January 21, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 04, 2021
Application Filed
May 31, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 05, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 26, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 26, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 31, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 11, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 20, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 12, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601871
OPTICAL FIBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596224
MULTI-CLAD OPTICAL FIBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585071
FIBER OPTIC CABLE ASSEMBLIES WITH IN-LINE TERMINAL ASSEMBLIES AND METHODS OF MAKING AND INSTALLING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585062
OPTICAL FIBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571963
POLARIZATION BEAM SPLITTER ROTATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
63%
With Interview (+10.1%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 650 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