Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/325,268

METHODS AND SYSTEMS OF MECHANICAL TUNING MULTI CHANNEL OPTICAL COMPONENTS

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
May 30, 2023
Examiner
RAHLL, JERRY T
Art Unit
2874
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
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

§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 . Drawings Figures 1-8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because lines 2 and 10 both end with periods. Claims should consist of a single sentence (see MPEP 608.01(m)). It appears that the sentence at line 2 is a typographical error. For examination purposes, the first period of Claim 1 shall be treated as if it were a semicolon. 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 7-9 and 15-16 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. Claim 7 describes “the bend of the third region” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, any beam guiding structure shall be construed to satisfy the claim limitation. Further, Claim 7 recites the limitation "slab waveguide" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, any beam guiding structure shall be construed to satisfy the claim limitation. Claims 8 and 9 depends from Claim 7 and fail to remedy these deficiencies. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the device exit light" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, any light exiting form any portion of the device shall be considered the device exit light. Further, Claim 15 describes that the device exit light, “come out from region one using reflectors at the end of desired channels” at lines 2-3. It is unclear what structure or function is intended to be described by this language. Claim 16 depends from Claim 15 and fails to remedy these deficiencies. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,305,402 to Hill et al. (“US1”). Regarding Claim 1, US1 describes an optical device (see Figs 1, 8-9, and 11-13) comprising: a first region (32) in which multiple optical beams are propagating; a second region (at 2/4) where at least one part of each optical beam of the multiple optical beams is received for further processing back into the first region; and at least one third region (at 10/14) between the first region and second region which is deformable without physical discontinuities with the first region and second region supporting oppositely propagating optical paths with more than one optical guiding features; wherein the deformation of the third or second region results in the optical beam, received back in the third region having at least one of a different orientation and a different position than it initially had, after processing in the second region (see Col 5 Ln 62-Col 6 Ln 25). Regarding Claim 2, US1 describes at least one deformable third region as a mechanical beam (18) supporting optical propagation (via the fibers 5, 6, 7, 8). Regarding Claim 3, US1 describes each optical beam is at least a guided optical beam (inherent to the function of the optical fibers carrying the beams). Regarding Claim 5, US1 further describes that: in a first part of a deformable region (the body of the optical fibers) the optical beams are laterally guided; in a second part of a deformable region (the end faces of the fibers at 12 as shown in Figs 8 and 11) the optical beams are laterally free to propagate resulting in control of the spatial properties of the optical beam within the second region. Regarding Claim 12, US1 describes a diffraction grating (2), wherein the angle of incidence or diffraction of light on or by the diffraction grating is controlled by the deformation of at least one mechanical beam resulting in a change of diffracted wavelengths (see Col 6 Lns 5-25 and Col 7 Lns 5-36). Regarding Claim 13, US1 describes one of the light inputs (104, 5, 52) is a light output and the other light paths on region one are outputs (106, 6, 53); and each output has specific tuning band based on the predetermined special position of the output waveguide (see Col 6 Lns 5-25 and Col 7 Lns 5-36). Regarding Claim 14, US1 describes the center wavelength of the tuning band of each output is determined by a special separation of the outputs as a pre-set value (inherent to the operation as described at Col 6 Lns 5-25 and Col 7 Lns 5-36). Regarding Claim 19, US1 describes at least one deformable third region as deformed using micro-electro-mechanical systems (18). Regarding Claim 20, US1 describes the at least one deformable third region as deformed using mechanical actuators (18). Claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 6,134,359 to Keyworth et al. (“US2”). Regarding Claim 1, US2 describes an optical device (see Figs 1-2) comprising: a first region (exterior to 10) in which multiple optical beams are propagating; a second region (12/14/16) where at least one part of each optical beam of the multiple optical beams is received for further processing back into the first region; and at least one third region (18/22) between the first region and second region which is deformable without physical discontinuities with the first region and second region supporting oppositely propagating optical paths with more than one optical guiding features; wherein the deformation of the third or second region results in the optical beam, received back in the third region having at least one of a different orientation and a different position than it initially had, after processing in the second region (see Col 4 Ln 59-Col 5 Ln 10). Regarding Claim 2, US2 describes at least one deformable third region as a mechanical beam (22) supporting optical propagation (via the fibers 24, 26, 28). Regarding Claim 3, US2 describes each optical beam is at least a guided optical beam (inherent to the function of the optical fibers carrying the beams). Regarding Claim 5, US2 describes that: in a first part of a deformable region (the body of the optical fibers) the optical beams are laterally guided; in a second part of a deformable region (the end faces of the fibers facing 17 as shown in Figs 1 and 2) the optical beams are laterally free to propagate resulting in control of the spatial properties of the optical beam within the second region. Regarding Claim 12, US2 describes a diffraction grating (12), wherein the angle of incidence or diffraction of light on or by the diffraction grating is controlled by the deformation of at least one mechanical beam resulting in a change of diffracted wavelengths (see Col 2 Lns 7-45 and Col 5 Lns 5-33). Regarding Claim 13, US2 describes one of the light inputs (24) is a light output and the other light paths on region one are outputs (26, 28); and each output has specific tuning band based on the predetermined special position of the output waveguide (see Col 2 Lns 7-45 and Col 5 Lns 5-33). Regarding Claim 14, US2 describes the center wavelength of the tuning band of each output is determined by a special separation of the outputs as a pre-set value (inherent to the operation as described at Col 2 Lns 7-45 and Col 5 Lns 5-33). Regarding Claim 18, US2 describes a spoiler region (end face of 18) disposed laterally to the optical beam resulting in undesired parts of the optical beam not interfering with the desired parts. Regarding Claim 20, US2 describes the at least one deformable third region as deformed using thermal deformation (see Col 5 Lns 11-21). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 6, 10-11, and 17 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. Claim 4 describes each optical beam is guided vertically using a planar waveguide. Claim 6 describes the optical beams axis are parallel to the mechanical beam axis. Claim 10 describes the mechanical beam as a built-in beam; a first part of the mechanical beam having a first second moment of inertia; a second part of the mechanical beam having a second moment of inertia. Claim 11 describes an arrayed waveguide grating (AWG) with mirrors at the end of each AWG element is added on the end of the third region of the mechanical beam. Claim 17 describes at least a part of the mechanical beam having a trapezoidal shape 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 art describes various optical devices including a deformation region and/or processing of optical beams to alter orientation or position. 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

May 30, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (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 for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month