Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/371,249

OPTICAL FIBER ARRAY AND A NANOIMPRINT LITHOGRAPHY PROCESS FOR FORMING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 21, 2023
Examiner
CONNELLY, MICHELLE R
Art Unit
2874
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Himax Technologies Limited
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
808 granted / 1010 resolved
+12.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
1052
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.1%
+6.1% vs TC avg
§102
31.9%
-8.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.0%
-25.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1010 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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7, 2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment Applicant’s Amendment filed January 7, 2026 has been fully considered and entered. Inventorship 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. 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. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birincioglu et al. (US 2008/0166136 A1; hereafter Birincioglu) in view of Lin (US 2013/0161495 A1) and Sun et al. (US 2014/0099057 A1; hereafter Sun). Regarding claims 1 and 2; Birincioglu discloses an optical fiber array (see Figure 7), comprising: a groove plate (plate having v-grooves 14-1 through 14-5 formed in surface 16) having a plurality of grooves (14-1 through 14-5) disposed on a top surface (16) thereof; and an optical component plate (plate including wall 20) having a plurality of lenses (18-1 through 18-5) disposed on a first surface (20) of the optical component plate facing the plurality of grooves (14-1 through 14-5) and a plurality of prisms (a plurality of portions of the reflective prismatic protrusion integrally formed with the optical component plate; see annotated Figures 1 and 7 below, the examiner notes that Figure 1 is an embodiment with a single v-groove, lens and prismatic protrusion, however the side profile of the array of Figure 7 would be the same, so Figure 1 is annotated below as well) disposed on a second surface (see annotated Figure 7 below) of the optical component plate, the second surface (second surface; see annotated Figures 1 and 7 below) being opposite and parallel to the first surface (20); wherein a cross-sectional profile of each groove resembles a V (V-grooves; see paragraphs 22 and 28). PNG media_image1.png 342 568 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 324 577 media_image2.png Greyscale Birincioglu teaches that the light is coupled from the fiber (22) through the lens (18) and by the prisms (portions of the prismatic protrusion) to a photodiode (30). Birincioglu does not disclose that the plurality of prisms are coupled to receive optical signals, which are then transmitted through the plurality of lenses and are finally outputted through a plurality of fibers respectively disposed on the plurality of grooves. However, the optical fiber array of Birincioglu is capable of coupling light in the claimed manner. The examiner notes that “to receive optical signals, which are then transmitted through the plurality of lenses and are finally outputted through a plurality of fibers respective disposed on the plurality of grooves" is an intended use of the optical fiber array. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II. It is known in the art to couple optical fiber arrays to optical transmitting elements for the purpose of coupling light from the transmitting element into the optical fibers. Lin teaches that light from a laser-diode (203) may be coupled through a reflective prism element via reflective surface 2353, through a lens (25) and into an optical fiber (26) of an optical fiber array unit (20; see Figures 1 and 3). Sun teaches that light may be coupled from an optical signal transmitter (26) through a prism body (12) and a lens (142a) into an optical fiber (40a; see Figure 9) of an optical fiber array unit or coupled from a fiber (40b) of the same fiber array unit through a lens (142b) and the prism body (12) into an optical signal receiver (28). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to couple an optical transmitter to the optical fiber array unit of Birincioglu either in place of the optical receiver (30) or in addition to for the purpose of providing an optical transmitter and/or transceiver arrangement, since this use of optical fiber array devices is known in the prior art, and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2024/0085645 A1) in view of Birincioglu et al. (US 2008/0166136 A1), Lin (US 2013/0161495 A1), and Sun et al. (US 2014/0099057 A1; hereafter Sun). Regarding claims 1-4 and 6; Hu et al. discloses an optical fiber array (see Figures 2 and 4), comprising: a groove plate (plate 2) having a plurality of grooves (grooves 22, 24, 25) disposed on a top surface (21) thereof; and an optical component plate (3) having a plurality of lenses (lenses 311) disposed on a first surface (31) of the optical component plate (3) facing the plurality of grooves (22, 24, 25) and a second plurality of lenses (lenses 321) disposed on a second surface (32) of the optical component plate (3), the second surface (32) being opposite and parallel to the first surface (31); wherein a cross-sectional profile of each groove resembles a V (see paragraph 6); wherein the groove plate (2) further comprises: two protrusions (longitudinal edge surfaces between grooves 24 and 25; see Figures 2, 3, and 4) disposed longitudinally at both ends of the groove plate (2), the protrusion being higher than a top end of the grooves (see Figure 3); wherein a top surface of the optical component plate (3) is aligned with a top surface of the protrusions (see Figures 2-4); and wherein the optical component plate (3) further comprises at least two guide pins (posts 34) disposed on the first surface (21) of the optical component plate (2). Hu et al. does not disclose a plurality of prisms in the embodiment of Figures 2 and 4, which illustrated the second plurality of lenses are provided to couple light in the same direction that light is propagating through the fiber array. However, Hu et al. does teach that the lenses may be prisms (see paragraph 35) and illustrates the prism (at surface 32) in Figure 10. Birincioglu et al. teaches that light may be coupled in a direction perpendicular to the direction in which light is propagating through a fiber array by providing a prism (prismatic protrusion; see Figures 1 and 7 annotated below) between a first plurality of lenses (18-1 through 18-5) facing v-grooves (14-1 through 14-5) and a second plurality of lenses (26) to allow for the light to be coupled vertically to a desired location. PNG media_image1.png 342 568 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 324 577 media_image2.png Greyscale Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to replace the second plurality of lenses (321) of Hu et al. with a prism having a reflective face and having a second plurality of lenses formed thereon for the purpose of changing the propagation direction of light, since this arrangement is suggested by the prior art teachings and would not appear to result in an novel or unexpected advantages, wherein element 32 in Figure 10 of Hu et al. is shaped like a prism with a reflective surface, Hu et al. teaches that the element may be a prism (paragraph 35), and Birincioglu et al. teaches that a prism is known to be provided in a similar arrangement to deflect light. Hu and Birincioglu teach that the light is coupled from the fibers (12 of Hu) through the lenses (311) and by the prisms (portions of the prismatic protrusion; reflective surface 32 of prism regions) to a light receiver (42). Hu does not disclose that the plurality of prisms are coupled to receive optical signals, which are then transmitted through the plurality of lenses and are finally outputted through a plurality of fibers respectively disposed on the plurality of grooves. However, the optical fiber array of Hu is capable of coupling light in the claimed manner. The examiner notes that “to receive optical signals, which are then transmitted through the plurality of lenses and are finally outputted through a plurality of fibers respective disposed on the plurality of grooves" is an intended use of the optical fiber array. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II. It is known in the art to couple optical fiber arrays to optical transmitting elements for the purpose of coupling light from the transmitting element into the optical fibers. Lin teaches that light from a laser-diode (203) may be coupled through a reflective prism element via reflective surface 2353, through a lens (25) and into an optical fiber (26) of an optical fiber array unit (20; see Figures 1 and 3). Sun teaches that light may be coupled from an optical signal transmitter (26) through a prism body (12) and a lens (142a) into an optical fiber (40a; see Figure 9) of an optical fiber array unit or coupled from a fiber (40b) of the same fiber array unit through a lens (142b) and the prism body (12) into an optical signal receiver (28). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to couple an optical transmitter to the optical fiber array unit of Hu either in place of the optical receiver (42) or in addition to for the purpose of providing an optical transmitter and/or transceiver arrangement, since this use of optical fiber array devices is known in the prior art, and one of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known coupling methods with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM. 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. /MICHELLE R CONNELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 21, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 22, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 07, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601872
HOLLOW-CORE OPTICAL FIBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603476
EXTENDED-CAVITY DIODE LASER COMPONENT AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591094
AN OPTICAL DEVICE AND A METHOD OF FORMING AN OPTICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12571968
FIBER OPTIC ADAPTER ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560756
ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVEGUIDE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+14.1%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1010 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