Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/262,642

LOW COST FBG SENSOR SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 24, 2023
Examiner
RAHLL, JERRY T
Art Unit
2874
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Foce Technology International BV
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
1089 granted / 1215 resolved
+21.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1261
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
43.9%
+3.9% vs TC avg
§102
42.4%
+2.4% vs TC avg
§112
10.5%
-29.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1215 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS's) submitted comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement; please see attached forms PTO-1449. Drawings The drawings submitted have been reviewed and determined to facilitate understanding of the invention. The drawings are accepted as submitted. 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. 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. Claims 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “A large capacity sensing network with identical weak fiber Bragg gratings multiplexing,” by Zhang et al. (“Zhang”), cited in Applicant’s IDS submitted 07 November 2023. Regarding Claim 1, Zhang describes sensor comprising: an optical fiber comprising a plurality of Fiber Bragg Gratings (see Pg 3082 Par 4); wherein a FWHM of the Fiber Bragg Gratings and an inter-spacing of the Fiber Bragg Gratings are configured such that primary reflections from the Fiber Bragg Gratings generate a first wavelength-dependent function, and further such that a ripple due to re-reflections between the Fiber Bragg Gratings generates a second wavelength-dependent function (see Pg 3084 Par 1-3). Zhang does not describe a low-pass filter. Zhang describes separating the first wavelength-dependent function and the second wavelength dependent function in order to calculate the spatial position of the measurand (see Pg 3082 Par 3 and Pg 3085 Par 3-4). The use of a low-pass filter is a common method of separating combined signals to allow for further analysis/calculations. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a low-pass filter configured to pass signals satisfying the first wavelength-dependent function and to reject signals satisfying the second wavelength-dependent function in the sensor of Zhang. The motivation for doing so would have been to make use of a known technique for improving similar devices in the same way. Regarding Claim 2, Zhang does not specifically describe the first and second wavelength dependent functions each comprise a signal spectrum as a function of wavelength change rate, the signal spectrum of the second wavelength dependent function falling within a wavelength change rate range outside and above a wavelength change rate range of the first wavelength dependent function. However, the first and second wavelength dependent functions must inherently have these characteristics in order for the optical wavelength time-domain reflection described by Zhang (see Pg 3083 Par 2-Pg 3084 Par 4). Regarding Claim 3, Zhang describes logic to estimate from the ripple a contribution of the re-reflections to the primary reflection signal and to apply the contribution of the re-reflections to distinguish the primary reflections from the re-reflections (see Pg 3083 Par 2-3; Pg 3084 Par 2-5). Regarding Claim 4, Zhang describes a laser configured to inject light pulses into the optical fiber (see Pg 3085 Par 2), the light pulses having a width greater than 100 ps (see pulse widths shown in Fig 7). Zhang does not specifically describe the wavelength step size of the laser light pulses. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use wavelength step size less than or equal to an eighth of the FWHM, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding Claim 5, Zhang describes the inter-spacing of the Fiber Bragg Gratings along the optical fiber as variable (see Pg 3084 Par 3, 5). Regarding Claim 11, Zhang describes both of the inter-spacing of the Fiber Bragg Gratings along the optical fiber and the center wavelengths of the Fiber Bragg Gratings as varying (see Pg 3084 Par 3). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 12-22 are allowed. Claims 6-10 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 6 describes the Fiber Bragg Gratings are organized into a plurality of sets, each set comprising a same pattern of variable inter-spacing of the Fiber Bragg Gratings. Claim 7 describes the Fiber Bragg Gratings are organized into a plurality of sets, each set comprising a fixed inter-spacing of the Fiber Bragg Gratings that differs from the fixed inter-spacing of the Fiber Bragg Gratings in other sets. Claims 8-10 describe a center wavelength varying among of the Fiber Bragg Gratings. Claims 12-22 describe Fiber Bragg Gratings arranged into at least two different groupings of gratings in the optical fiber, the first grouping comprising a first constant step size between the gratings therein, and the second grouping comprising a second constant step size between the gratings therein; wherein the first step size in millimeters differs from the second step size by greater than 1.1/FWHM These limitations represent subject matter not described or reasonably suggested, in conjunction with the further limitations of the present claims, by the prior art of record. Conclusion The prior art cited in the attached form PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art describes optical sensing systems utilizing fiber Bragg gratings. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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. /JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 24, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601918
OPTICAL STRUCTURE AND OPTICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601876
OPTICAL FIBER ALIGNMENT METHOD AND ALIGNMENT DEVICE, AND CONNECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591099
SPLICE TRAY AND FIBER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578533
FUSION SPLICING DEVICE AND CORE POSITION SPECIFICATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571961
ECHELLE GRATINGS WITH A SHARED FREE PROPAGATION REGION
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+8.4%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1215 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