Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/003,340

BISMUTH-SUBSTITUTED RARE EARTH IRON GARNET SINGLE CRYSTAL FILM PRODUCTION METHOD, FARADAY ROTATOR, AND OPTICAL ISOLATOR

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Dec 27, 2022
Examiner
GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F
Art Unit
1767
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
687 granted / 1012 resolved
+2.9% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1042
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1012 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . 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. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: The composition formula in line 3 of claim 1 is missing subscripts, and the scientific notation in line 3 of claim 3 is missing the proper superscript. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 1, the parentheses in lines 5, 8, and 13 render the claim indefinite as it is not clear if the limitations withing the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. 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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uchida et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0150893). Uchida et al. teaches a faraday rotator in an optical isolator comprising a single crystal film of formula Bi1.3Gd1.2Yb0.5Fe4.2Ga0.6Al0.2O12, reading on the formula of instant claim 1 wherein Ln is Gd and Yb, A is Ga and Al, a is 1.7 and b is 0.8 ([0002], [0041]-[0042], and [0133]). While Uchida et al. does not teach that the film is made by the method of claim 1, such limitations are product-by-process limitations. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [See MPEP 2113]. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and objections set forth in this Office action. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER F GODENSCHWAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3302. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00, M-F 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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. /PETER F GODENSCHWAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 March 19, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 27, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600804
SYNERGISTIC COMBINATION FOR INHIBITING POLYMERIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600625
A METHOD FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF SOOT FORMATION IN AN ATR OR POX REACTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601063
LANDING BASE EXTERNAL CORROSION INHIBITION USING IN-SITU FORMED POLYACRYLAMIDE GEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600905
PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF UP-CONVERSION PHOSPHORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595403
THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
68%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+18.1%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1012 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