Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/371,172

ON-CHIP STRUCTURE FOR FIBER ARRAY ALIGNMENT BY ASSISTING EDGE COUPLER INDEX-MATCHING EPOXY/OIL FILLING

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 21, 2023
Examiner
BLEVINS, JERRY M
Art Unit
2874
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Finisar Shanghai Incorporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
1072 granted / 1227 resolved
+19.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
1255
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
57.0%
+17.0% vs TC avg
§102
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
§112
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1227 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . 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. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 16, 2026, has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner holds that previously cited US 2017/0293073 (“CHEN-1”) teaches that the duct (204, 504) forms communicating vessels (as shown in FIG. 5, the vessels being the portions of duct 504 located between edge couplers 508) between the plurality of edge couplers (508, including waveguides 308), the one or more main buckets (502), and the one or more monitor buckets. Furthermore, as stated in par. [0047], CHEN-1 teaches that this is located at the wafer level. As such, Examiner maintains the outstanding claim rejections. 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. Claims 1-3, 7-11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHEN-1. Regarding claim 1, CHEN-1 teaches a system comprising :a plurality of edge couplers (508), each comprising an undercut (310) formed beneath a waveguide (308), wherein ribs (112) suspend the waveguide over the undercut (FIG. 3; par. [0028]); one or more main buckets (502) configured to receive an index-matching liquid (pars. [0047]-[0049]); one or more monitor buckets (106); and a duct (204, 504) that couples together the plurality of edge couplers, the one or more main buckets, and the one or more monitor buckets (FIGs. 1-5), wherein the duct forms communicating vessels between the plurality of edger couplers, the one or more main buckets, and the one or more monitor buckets (FIG. 5, the vessels being the portions of duct 504 located between edge couplers 508), such that index-matching liquid introduced through the one or more main buckets is directed to flow through the duct to fill the undercuts of the plurality of edge couplers and flow to the monitor buckets, thereby assisting uniform filling and monitoring of the index-matching liquid across multiple couplers on a wafer (FIGs. 1-5; pars. [0021], [0026], [0028], [0030]-[0032], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0041], [0044], [0046]-[0048], [0053], [0054]). Regarding claim 2, CHEN-1 teaches that the index-matching liquid is an oil or an epoxy (par. [0037]). Regarding claim 3, CHEN-1 teaches that one or more main buckets comprise an opening to add the index-matching liquid into the system (par. [0047]). Regarding claim 7, CHEN-1 teaches that the one or more monitor bucket comprise an opening (106) to monitor the filling process. Regarding claim 8, CHEN-1 teaches that a separation distance between at least one of the one or more monitor buckets and at least one of the one or more main buckets is greater than the separation distance between any one of the undercuts and any of the one or more main buckets (FIG. 2). Regarding claim 9, CHEN-1 teaches that the plurality of undercuts, the one or more main buckets, and the one or more monitor buckets are formed on a same layer of the wafer (FIGs. 1-5). Regarding claim 10, CHEN-1 teaches that the plurality of undercuts, the one or more main buckets, and the one or more monitor buckets are of a same depth (par. [0040]). Regarding claim 11, CHEN-1 teaches that the coupling by the duct forms communicating vessels from the plurality of edge couplers, the one or more main buckets, and the one or more monitor buckets (par. [0039]). Regarding claim 15, CHEN-1 teaches that a photonic integrated circuit comprises the system (par. [0049]). Regarding claim 16, CHEN-1 teaches that the wafer is a silicon photonics wafer (pars. [0029], [0045], [0047]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 4, 5, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN-1. CHEN-1 teaches the limitations of the base claims 1 and 3. The additional limitations appear to involve either mere changes in shape or mere dimensional optimization. It has been held that mere changes in shape hold no patentable weight absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration has significance. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the shape and optimize the dimensions of the system of CHEN-1. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN-1 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2004/0103950 (“IRIGUCHI”). CHEN-1 teaches the limitations of the base claim 3. CHEN-1 does not explicitly teach that the opening is suitable for the filling with the index-matching liquid by an automatic station. IRIGUCHI teaches an opening that is suitable for a filling with index-matching liquid by an automatic station (pars. [0065], [0077], [0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the system of CHEN-1 with the automatic station of IRIGUCHI. The motivation would have been to automate the filling process (pars. [0065], [0077], [0088]). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN-1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0076465 (“CHEN-2”). CHEN-1 teaches the limitations of the base claim 1. CHEN-1 does not explicitly teach that filling of the undercuts with the index-matching liquid increases a mode field diameter at the facet of the waveguides. CHEN-2 teaches filling of undercuts with an index-matching liquid which increases a mode field diameter at a facet of a waveguide (pars. [0044]-[0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the system of CHEN-1 such that the mode field diameter at a facet of the waveguides is increased, as taught by CHEN-2. The motivation would have been to improve coupling efficiency (pars. [0044]-[0046]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY M BLEVINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday. 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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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 M BLEVINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 21, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 28, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 08, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 08, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601879
Flexible Push-Pull Boot with a Transition Member
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601867
IMAGE LIGHT GUIDE WITH ZONED DIFFRACTIVE OPTIC
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604409
PHOTONIC INTEGRATED CIRCUIT EMBEDDED SUBSTRATE AND PHOTONIC INTEGRATED CIRCUIT PACKAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601868
OPTICAL WAVEGUIDE ARRANGEMENT WITH IMPROVED CAPACITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596230
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A PHOTONIC CHIP
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+4.9%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1227 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