Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/516,109

OPTICAL DEVICE, OPTICAL TRANSMITTER DEVICE, AND OPTICAL RECEIVER DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 21, 2023
Examiner
CHU, CHRIS H
Art Unit
2874
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Fujitsu Optical Components Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
63%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
345 granted / 650 resolved
-14.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
694
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
74.2%
+34.2% vs TC avg
§102
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
§112
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 650 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 21, 2023 has been considered by the Examiner. Drawings Twenty-two sheets for formal drawings were filed November 21, 2023 and have been accepted by the Examiner. Specification Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Regarding claim 1, the limitation “formed in region excluding at least upper portion of the spot size converter” should be changed to “formed in a region excluding at least the upper portion of the spot size converter” for grammatical purposes and clarity. Regarding claim 3, “in upper portion of the cladding layer” should be changed to “in an upper portion of the cladding layer” for grammatical purposes and clarity. Appropriate correction must be made. 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakashiba et al. (US 2019/0196110 A1) in view of Morimoto (JP H09-199791 A). Regarding claim 1, Nakashiba discloses an optical device comprising a core (WG1 in Figs. 3-4) formed on a substrate (1S), a cladding layer (CLD) covering the core, a passivation layer (CVF) formed on the cladding layer, and a spot size converter (P2 region) that causes an increase in spot size of a light, which is guided through the core, toward an end portion of the substrate. Still regarding claim 1, Nakashiba teaches the claimed invention except the passivation layer formed in a region excluding at least the upper portion of the spot size converter. Morimoto discloses an optical device (Figs. 1-3) comprising a silicon nitride passivation layer (13) which is formed in a region excluding at least the upper portion of the spot size converter (see “Best Mode for Carrying out the Invention” section, specifically paragraph 0037, which describes the structure applied to a spot size conversion device, and the silicon nitride film having an opening near the light emission surface). Since both of the inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a passivation layer comprising an opening as disclosed by Morimoto in the device of Nakashiba for the purpose of enhancing the optical confinement (motivation is provided in the abstract of Morimoto, disclosing the silicon nitride film 13 with an opening functions as an optical confinement layer). In the proposed combination, the silicon nitride layer would have a higher material refractive index than a cladding layer since Nakashiba discloses “a plurality of optical waveguide bodies OG formed of a silicon nitride film having a higher refractive index than those of a cladding layer CLD in paragraph 0073). Regarding claim 2, Nakashiba discloses in the spot size converter, width of the core becomes narrower toward end of the substrate so that spot size of the light becomes larger toward the end portion of the substrate (see P2 region, core of WG1 becomes narrower towards end of the substrate and spot size becomes larger due to OGU, to provide optical coupling between WG1 and WG2 while suppressing light loss). Regarding claim 3, the proposed combination of Nakashiba and Morimoto discloses in an upper portion of the cladding layer, a film is formed that is made of a material having a lower material refractive index than the cladding layer, since the opening in the passivation layer would result in air filling the opening, which is known to have a lower refractive index than silicon oxide cladding. Regarding claim 4, Nakashiba discloses the material of the core includes at least one of silicon (Si), silicon mononitride (SiN), and silicon oxynitride (SiON) in paragraph 0046. Regarding claim 5, proposed combination of Nakashiba and Morimoto teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the spot size converter and end portion of the substrate make an angle other than a right angle in the core. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the spot size converter and end portion of the substrate make an angle other than a right angle in the core in order to reduce back reflections. Regarding claim 6, proposed combination of Nakashiba and Morimoto teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating two of the spot size converter are disposed with leading ends thereof in the core make a pair across a dicing line. However, it is ubiquitous in the art of optical devices to dispose a pair to face each other across a dicing line and as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose two of the spot size converter to make a pair across a dicing line for the purpose of expediting the manufacturing process thereof. Regarding claim 7, proposed combination of Nakashiba and Morimoto teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating a plurality of the spot size converter is arranged. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a plurality of spot size converters in order to transmit multiple signals, and since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Regarding claim 8, Nakashiba further discloses the spot size converter includes a semiconductor or a dielectric substance (paragraph 0046) as an optical waveguide whose surrounding is covered by a covering layer (CLD) having a lower refractive index than the optical waveguide (paragraph 0073) and guides a light from an optical waveguide having a large relative refractive index difference (P1 region) to an optical waveguide having a small relative refractive index difference (P2 region), and increases spot size of the light. Since Morimoto discloses the passivation silicon nitride film having an opening at the spot size converter, the proposed combination of Nakashiba and Morimoto teaches the passivation layer is formed in the region excluding at least some part of the upper portion of the optical waveguide having a small relative refractive index difference. Regarding claim 9, Nakashiba discloses the material of a semiconductor or a dielectric substance constituting the optical waveguide includes at least one of silicon (Si), silicon dioxide (SiO2), silicon mononitride (SiN) , and silicon oxynitride (SiON)in paragraph 0046. Regarding claim 10, the proposed combination of Nakashiba and Morimoto discloses the covering layer is an air layer, since the opening in the passivation layer would result in air filling the opening, which would cover the spot size converter. Regarding claims 11 and 12, Nakashiba further discloses the optical device used as both an optical transmitter and an optical receiver in paragraph 0043. The proposed combination of Nakashiba and Morimoto teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating a processor, a light transmitter that modulates light generated by a light source, or an optical receiver that demodulates light from a light source. However, the various components are ubiquitous in the art of optical devices and as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a processor, a light transmitter that modulates light generated by a light source, or an optical receiver that demodulates light from a light source in order to facilitate the optical device in sending or receiving signals. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562. Chris H. Chu /CHRIS H CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 January 6, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 21, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601871
OPTICAL FIBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596224
MULTI-CLAD OPTICAL FIBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585071
FIBER OPTIC CABLE ASSEMBLIES WITH IN-LINE TERMINAL ASSEMBLIES AND METHODS OF MAKING AND INSTALLING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585062
OPTICAL FIBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571963
POLARIZATION BEAM SPLITTER ROTATOR
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
53%
Grant Probability
63%
With Interview (+10.1%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 650 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