Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/860,301

OPTICAL FILTER, WAVELENGTH TUNABLE LASER ELEMENT, WAVELENGTH TUNABLE LASER MODULE, METHOD OF CONTROLLING WAVELENGTH TUNABLE LASER MODULE, AND COMPUTER-READABLE NON-TRANSITORY MEDIUM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 08, 2022
Examiner
NELSON, HUNTER JARED
Art Unit
2828
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
National University Corporation Hokkaido University
OA Round
2 (Final)
17%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
29%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 17% of cases
17%
Career Allow Rate
2 granted / 12 resolved
-51.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
63
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.5%
+11.5% vs TC avg
§102
14.4%
-25.6% vs TC avg
§112
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 12 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Amendment Examiner notes the amendment made to claim 1. Claims 2-20 stand withdrawn as drawn to a non-elected species. No new claims have been added Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. The factual inquiries 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (hereinafter Jiang) (CN 105572806 A) in view of Kielpinski et al. (hereinafter Kielpinski (US 20190170943 A1) (Examiner notes an attached machine translation of Jiang will be used for the claim mapping of Jiang in the instant action. See PTO-892 form). Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses in Fig. 1, An optical filter [Fig. 1] (Para. [35]) comprising: a first loop mirror [top SLM] (Para. [35]); a second loop mirror [bottom SLM] (Para. [35]); a first waveguide [waveguide labeled l3] (Para. [37]) optically coupled to the first loop mirror [top SLM] and the second loop mirror [bottom SLM] (Paras. [36,37]); and a first access waveguide [waveguide labeled l1] (Para. [37]), wherein the first loop mirror [top SLM] includes a first loop waveguide [top loop waveguide labeled l2] (Para. [37]) and a first multiplexer/demultiplexer [coupler labeled t2] (Paras. [35,36,37]), wherein the second loop mirror [bottom SLM] includes a second loop waveguide [bottom loop waveguide labeled l2] (Para. [37]) and a second multiplexer/demultiplexer [coupler labeled t3] (Paras. [35,36,37]), wherein the first loop waveguide [top loop waveguide labeled l2] is optically coupled to the first multiplexer/demultiplexer [coupler labeled t2] (Paras. [35,36,37]), wherein the second loop waveguide [bottom loop waveguide labeled l2] is optically coupled to the second multiplexer/demultiplexer [coupler labeled t3] (Paras. [35,36,37]), wherein the first waveguide [waveguide labeled l3] is optically coupled to the first multiplexer/demultiplexer [coupler labeled t2] and the second multiplexer/demultiplexer [coupler labeled t3] (Paras. [35,36,37]), and wherein the first access waveguide [waveguide labeled l1] is optically coupled to the first waveguide [waveguide labeled l3] (Paras. [35,36,37]) (coupled through t2). Examiner notes that the first and second multiplexers/demultiplexers are disclosed to alternatively be directional couplers in Paras. (4) and (5) of the Applicant’s specification. Jiang fails to disclose, Wherein the first access waveguide is optically coupled to the first waveguide across a gap between the first access waveguide and the first waveguide. Kielpinski discloses in Fig. 1, a first access waveguide [“first waveguide” 110] (Para. [0028]) optically coupled to a first waveguide [“second waveguide” 120] (Paras. [0028,0029]) across a gap [145] (Para. [0029]) between the first access waveguide [“first waveguide” 110] (Para. [0028]) and the first waveguide [“second waveguide” 120] (Paras. [0028,0029]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the first access waveguide coupled to the first waveguide across a gap as shown in Kielpinski with the first access waveguide and first waveguide of Jiang for the purpose of entirely coupling the signal of one waveguide to the other waveguide. (Kielpinski Para. [0029]) Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner particularly notes Kobayashi (US 20190317278 A1) which discloses two waveguides optically coupled across a gap between the respective waveguides. (See PTO-892 form) Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET. 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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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. /H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 08, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 14, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 14, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 06, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

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
17%
Grant Probability
29%
With Interview (+12.5%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 12 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