Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/404,381

SINGLE-FIBER BIDIRECTIONAL OPTICAL ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 04, 2024
Examiner
VANDERPUYE, KENNETH N
Art Unit
2634
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
innolight technology (suzhou) Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
11%
Grant Probability
At Risk
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
0%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 11% of cases
11%
Career Allow Rate
6 granted / 56 resolved
-51.3% vs TC avg
Minimal -11% lift
Without
With
+-10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
8 currently pending
Career history
64
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.6%
-34.4% vs TC avg
§103
48.0%
+8.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
§112
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 56 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keil et. al. in view of Sakurai. (10,025,034) With regards to claim 1 Keil et. al. teaches a single-fiber bidirectional optical assembly (Fig. 1), comprising: an optical emitter (Fig. 1, LD), an optical receiver (Fig. 1, D), a lens assembly (Fig. 1, KL1), a first filter (Fig. 1. LT), and an optical fiber interface end (Fig. 1, Fk, FE), wherein the optical fiber interface end is used for being connected to an optical fiber (Fig. 1, F), a downlink optical signal emitted by the optical emitter (Fig. 1, LD, wavelength 1) is focused by the lens assembly (Fig. 1, KL1), the focused downlink optical signal is emitted to the optical fiber sequentially through the first filter (Fig. 1. LT), and the optical fiber interface end(Fig. 1, Fk, FE),, and is then transmitted by the optical fiber(Fig. 1, F); wherein an uplink optical signal transmitted by the optical fiber(wavelength 2) is reflected by the first filter(LT) and is then received by the optical receiver(D). Keil et. al. fails to teach and wherein the single-fiber bidirectional optical assembly further comprises at least one optical power attenuator, the optical power attenuator is arranged between the optical emitter and the optical fiber interface end. This is taught by Sakurai (Fig 2A, 2B, 30). Sakurai does not specifically teach that the transmittance of the optical power attenuator varies with a wavelength of an optical signal. However official notice is taken that it is well known in the art that the intensity of light is directly related to its wavelength and this relationship is a key aspect of spectroscopy With regards to claim 2, neither Keil nor Sakura teach the single-fiber bidirectional optical assembly according to claim 1, wherein the transmittance of the optical power attenuator increases as the wavelength of the optical signal increases. However official notice is taken that it is well known in the art that as the wavelength of an optical signal increases, the power loss in the fiber decreases leading to higher transmittance Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-11 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH N VANDERPUYE whose telephone number is (571)272-3078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:30am-2:30p. 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. 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. /KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 04, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 18, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 08, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12519542
FEEDFORWARD MOTION COMPENSATION FOR FSOC TERMINALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12513437
Data Transmission Method, Apparatus, and System
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12506542
DYNAMIC LANE ASSIGNMENT FOR OPTICAL MODULES IN OPTICAL SUB-SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12425037
POLARITY DEPENDENT OFFSET IN ANALOG-TO-DIGITAL CONVERTERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12224800
Providing Access To Client Overhead While Transparently Transmitting The Client Signal Over Multiple Optical Subcarriers
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 11, 2025
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
11%
Grant Probability
0%
With Interview (-10.7%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 56 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