Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/704,010

OPTICAL UNIT AND SMARTPHONE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Mar 25, 2022
Examiner
DABBI, JYOTSNA V
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Nidec Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
333 granted / 541 resolved
-6.4% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
579
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
57.6%
+17.6% vs TC avg
§102
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 541 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/5/2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment The amendments to Claims 1,7-10,13, in the submission filed 3/5/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. The amendments to the Abstract are acknowledged and accepted. Pending Claims are 1-19. Claims 2,14-18, were withdrawn in response to a previous restriction action. Claims 1,3-13 and 19 will be examined. Response to Arguments a) Applicant’s note regarding Claim 19 were noted. Applicant states “The Office failed to assert a rejection of claim 19. Applicant understands that the Office is indicating that claim 19 contains allowable subject matter. Clarification regarding the status of claim 19 is respectfully requested.” Claim 19 was rejected in the last few lines of section 4 on page 3 of Office action dated 1/5/2026. The Office is not indicating that Claim 19 is allowable subject matter. b) Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/5/2026, with respect to rejection of claim 1 in view of Seo et al, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1,3-6,19, in view of Seo et al has been withdrawn. Particularly see page 6 of 8: PNG media_image1.png 164 671 media_image1.png Greyscale c) Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/5/2026, with respect to rejection of claim 1 in view of Bachar et al, have been fully considered and respectfully have not been found to be persuasive. Particularly see page 7 of 8: PNG media_image2.png 162 645 media_image2.png Greyscale Bachar teaches in figs in 1F that the grooves 102a 110a and 102b, 110b are in contact with the balls 116a, 116b. Fig 1D also illustrates the grooves enclosing the balls 112a/b, 114a/b and/or 116 a/b. Bachar teaches (col 5, lines 51-54) teaches “In actuator 100, three balls 112a, 114a and 116a are positioned in the space between grooves 102a and 110a and three balls 112b, 114b and 116b are positioned in the space between grooves 102b and 110b”. Hence Bachar teaches that the element 102 and element 110 contact the balls. In view of the above arguments, the rejection of claims is upheld. Claims 1,3-13, 19 are rejected as follows: 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)(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) 1,3-13,19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bachar et al (US 10,488,631, of record). Regarding Claim 1, Bachar et al discloses an optical unit comprising a movable body (optical element holder 102, col 4, lines 56-60) that has an optical element (OPFE 150, col 4, lines 56-65) that changes a traveling direction of light (see Fig. 1A); a support body (base 110, col 5, lines 23-25) that supports the movable body swingably about a swing axis (X); and a swing mechanism (grooves 110a, 110b, 102a, 102b, col 5, lines 23-35) that swings the movable body about the swing axis (X axis), wherein one of the movable body and the support body (base 110) has a first convex portion (balls 114a, 114b, col 5, lines 51-67) protruding toward another of the movable body (optical element holder 102) and the support body (see figures 1A, 1D and 1F), the other of the movable body (optical element holder 102) and the support body comes into contact with the first convex portion (balls 114a, 114b, col 5, lines 51-67) (see figures 1A, 1D and 1F), the first convex portion is arranged on the swing axis, and an optical axis of the optical element and the swing axis are arranged to overlap each other (see figures 1A, 1D and 1F), wherein one of the movable body and the support body (base 110) has a plurality of second convex portions (112a, 112b, 116a, 116b) that protrude toward another of the movable body (optical element holder 102) and the support body (see figures 1A, 1D and 1F), the other of the movable body (optical element holder 102) and the support body comes into contact with the plurality of second convex portions (112a, 112b, 116a, 116b) (see figures 1A, 1D and 1F), the plurality of second convex portions (112a, 112b, 116a, 116b) are arranged at positions separated from the swing axis (see figures 1A, 1D and 1F). Regarding Claim 3, Bachar teaches the optical unit according to claim 1, wherein the first convex portion (balls 114a, 114b, col 5, lines 51-67) has at least a part of a spherical surface due to the fact that the first convex portion imparts a ball (see col 5, lines 40-45) Regarding Claim 4, Bachar teaches the optical unit according to claim 1, wherein the support body (base 110, col 5, lines 23-25) has the first convex portion, wherein the support body (base 110, col 5, lines 23-25) has the first convex portion due to the fact the that support body carries the ball (balls 114a, 114b, col 5, lines 51-67). Regarding Claim 5, Bachar teaches the optical unit according to claim 1, wherein the other of the movable body (optical element holder 102) and the support body has a first concave portion (the groove/recess for receiving the convex portion of the ball 114a,114b) that is recessed in a direction opposite to the first convex portion, and the first concave portion comes into contact with the first convex portion (see figures 1A, 1D and 1F) Regarding Claim 6, Bachar teaches the optical unit according to claim 1, wherein the first concave portion (the groove/recess for receiving the convex portion of the ball 114a,114b) has at least a part of a concave spherical surface due to the fact that the groove/recess matches the shape of the ball (see column 3, lines 40-45) Regarding Claim 7, Bachar teaches the optical unit according to claim 1, the first convex portion and the plurality of second convex portions (112a, 112b, 114a, 114b, 116a, 116b, col 5) are arranged on a same plane that intersects the swing axis (see figures 1A, 1D and 1F). Regarding Claim 8, Bachar teaches the optical unit according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of second convex portions (112a, 112b, 116a, 116b) are arranged on a same circumference about the swing axis (see figures 1A, 1D and 1F). Regarding Claim 9, Bachar teaches the optical unit according to claim 1, wherein a number of the second convex portions is two (112a, 116a) on the right side of the base and two (112b. 116b) of the left side of the base (see Fig. 1A and 1C). Regarding Claim 10, Bachar teaches the optical unit according to claim 1, wherein the second convex portion (112a, 112b, 116a, 116b) has at least a part of a spherical surface due to the fact that the second convex portion is a ball (see figures 1A, 1D and 1F), Regarding Claim 11, Bachar teaches the optical unit according to claim 1, wherein the optical element (OPFE 150, col 4, lines 56-65) includes a reflection surface (OPFE, a mirror, see column 4, lines 43-49) that reflects light that travels to one side in a first direction to one side in a second direction that intersects the first direction, and the second convex portion (112a, 112b, 116a, 116b) is arranged on another side in the second direction relative to the first convex portion (see figures 1A, 1D and 1F). Regarding Claim 12, Bachar teaches the optical unit according to claim 1, wherein the second convex portion (balls 112a, 112b, 116a, 116b, col 5) is a sphere due to the fact that the second convex portion is a ball. Regarding Claim 13, Bachar teaches the optical unit according to claim 1, wherein the other of the movable body and the support body has a second concave portion (102a, 102b) that is recessed in a direction opposite to the second convex portion, the second concave portion (112a, 112b, 116a, 116b) comes into contact with the second convex portion (col 5 and see figures 1A, 1D and 1F) and as viewed from an optical axis direction (aligned with Z axis), a contour of the second concave portion is arranged outside the second convex portion (see figures 1A, 1D and 1F). Regarding Claim 19, Bachar teaches the optical unit according to claim 1. wherein the optical axis is colinear with the swing axis (“the second rotation axis includes an axis parallel to either the first optical axis or the second optical axis”, col 3, lines 22-26) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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. /JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 3/19/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 25, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Oct 27, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Mar 05, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 13, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596218
Holographic Wide Angle Display
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596329
HOLOGRAPHIC PROJECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591084
POLARIZING PLATE AND OPTICAL DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585100
APPARATUS AND METHOD TO CONVERT A REGULAR BRIGHT-FIELD MICROSCOPE INTO A PS-QPI SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585053
SCREEN PROVIDED WITH RETROREFLECTIVE MICROSTRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+23.7%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 541 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