Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/347,188

Optical Transceiver and Manufacturing Method Thereof

Non-Final OA §102§112§DP
Filed
Jul 05, 2023
Examiner
STAHL, MICHAEL J
Art Unit
2874
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
1122 granted / 1246 resolved
+22.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1282
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
§102
41.8%
+1.8% vs TC avg
§112
29.8%
-10.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1246 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112 §DP
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 15 is rejected because it recites that "part of the injection molding material layer above the optical coupling interface has a through hole" such that "the lower opening of the through hole covers the optical coupling interface". It is understood that "injection molding material" corresponds to encapsulant 400 and "optical coupling interface" corresponds to 200b (note the 5/20/2025 and 11/5/2025 remarks). However no through hole in the encapsulant layer 400, having a lower opening which covers the optical coupling interface, was illustrated or described in the originally filed disclosure. Claims 16-20 are rejected by dependence from claim 15. 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2006/0054901 A1. Claim 15: The process of manufacturing the '901 device of fig. 21A constitutes a three-dimensional packaging method of a photonic-electronic chip, comprising: providing a photonic chip 502 with a first surface (upper surface in fig. 21A) and a second surface (lower surface) which are opposite to each other; forming an optical coupling adhesive layer 513 ("silicone resin portion") on a second area of the first surface of the photonic chip, wherein the photonic chip is provided with an optical coupling interface (where it faces lens 510) at the second area, and the optical coupling adhesive layer covers the optical coupling interface; and forming an injection molding material layer 514 on the first surface of the photonic chip, the injection molding material layer surrounds the optical coupling adhesive layer 513, wherein the part of the injection molding material layer above the optical coupling interface has a through hole 516 with upper and lower openings connected up and down, and the coverage area of the lower opening of the through hole covers the optical coupling interface. Response to Arguments The specification and claim objections of the 8/6/2025 action have been overcome by amendments. The double patenting rejection appears to have been erroneous and is withdrawn. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections The rejection of claims 1-7 and the individual rejections of claims 4, 14, and 16 were overcome by amendments. The rejection of claims 8-14 is withdrawn. The remarks at pp. 20-21 refer to fig. 3G and [0036] which mentions an ablation process that removes the wall structure WS. After reconsideration it is observed that a trench TR (albeit partly occupied with WS) does extend completely through the dummy chip as of the state shown in fig. 3G and continuing through the state shown in fig. 3I. The possibility that this trench could be empty (i.e. free of WS and thus having connected upper and lower openings) appears to be supported by the third sentence of [0036] which states that "After removing the wall structure WS", the remaining parts CR and PC may be "picked-up and removed" (emphasis added). The rejection of claims 15-20 is maintained. The remarks at p. 22 assert that the recited through hole in the injection molding material layer is shown in fig. 3J. However, the process proceeding from the state of fig. 3I to the state of fig. 3J appears to have no effect on the injection molding material layer 400b. It does not form a through hole in the injection molding material layer as the term "through hole" is conventionally understood, and no upper and lower openings in the injection molding material layer are identified by the remarks or shown in the figures. 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections The rejection of claims 1-20 has been reconsidered and is withdrawn. MPEP 2172(III) appears to acknowledge that the subject matter which is regarded as an invention may vary during prosecution, including in continuing applications. The individual indefiniteness rejections of claim 16 and 18 were overcome by amendments. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-14 are allowed. Dependent claims 16-20 are not subject to a prior art rejection in this action and presumably would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of claim 15 and all applicable intervening claims, and if the rewriting overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above. Conclusion This action is not made final. The additional references listed on the attached 892 form are considered generally relevant to the subject matter of this application. Contact Information Examiner: 571-272-2360 Examiner's direct supervisor: 571-272-2397 Official correspondence by fax: 571-273-8300 Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Should you have questions about Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /Michael Stahl/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 05, 2023
Application Filed
May 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112, §DP
Nov 05, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596234
OPTICAL MODULE AND OPTICAL CONNECTOR CABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591093
FACILITATING OPTICAL COUPLING AND BEAM COLLIMATION IN PHOTONIC INTEGRATED CIRCUITS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585117
WAVEGUIDE FOR AUGMENTED REALITY OR VIRTUAL REALITY DISPLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587002
CONDUIT AND METHOD FOR LAYING CABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585061
LIGHT-EMITTING MODULE
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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+7.4%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1246 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