Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/518,119

INTERLOCK MECHANISM FOR OPTICAL FIBERS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 22, 2023
Examiner
MOONEY, MICHAEL P
Art Unit
2874
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
672 granted / 764 resolved
+20.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
786
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
45.3%
+5.3% vs TC avg
§102
31.6%
-8.4% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 764 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (WO 2012/106907 A1; “Chen”; already of record including translation; all page {p.} and ¶ references refer to the English translation). Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses a system (see figures 1-4), comprising: - a faceplate (21 ); - a mechanical actuator (limiting piece/sheet 4/232) coupled to the faceplate (see figures 1-4); - a receptacle (1) for receiving an optical fiber connector (7), wherein the receptacle is coupled to the faceplate (see figures 1-4); and - a protective enclosure (sheath 8) coupled to the faceplate, adjacent to the receptacle (see figures 1-4), and moveable responsive to movement of the mechanical actuator p. 5 5th ¶: "According to the schematic diagram of the unlock state of the optical interface protection component of the optical adapter shown in FIG. 3, the limit sheet 4 of the mounting base 9 is pressed to unlock, the sheath 8 is rotated upwards, the sheath wall 6 is unlocked from the optical fiber head 7, Out of the fiber head 7. '), comprising a primary protection barrier (top cover of sheath 8) covering a mechanical release mechanism of the optical fiber connector when the protective enclosure is in a covered position (see figures 2 and 4). Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 12 is met. Regarding claim 13, see Chen figures 1-4 for the protective enclosure further comprises two lateral walls coupled to the primary protection barrier. Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses the protective enclosure further comprises a fiber-covering barrier coupled to the primary protection barrier: See Chen (optical port protection component 23). Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses hinges coupled to the protective enclosure: See Chen (rotating shafts 5). 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. Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2012/106907 A1; “Chen”; already of record including translation; all page {p.} and ¶ references refer to the English translation) with obviousness evidenced by {OEB} Wischnewski (EP 4053609 A1). Chen is regarded as being the prior art closest to the subject-matter of claim 1, and discloses: a fiber-optic communication system (figures 1-4), comprising: - a faceplate (21); - a receptacle (1) in the faceplate that receives an optical fiber connector (7); - - a protective enclosure (sheath 8), coupled to the faceplate, having a covered position (figure 2 or 4) and an uncovered position (figure 1 or 3), wherein: • when the protective enclosure is in the covered position, the protective enclosure covers a manual release mechanism of the optical fiber connector (figure 2 or 4), and • when the protective enclosure is in the uncovered position, the protective enclosure uncovers the manual release mechanism of the optical fiber connector (figure 1 or 3); and - a mechanical actuator (limiting piece/sheet 4/232) coupled to the faceplate, having a first position and a second position (locked or pressed), wherein: • when the mechanical actuator is in the first position, the protective enclosure is in the covered position (p. 5, 4th ¶: "The optical fiber head 7 inserted in the optical adapter optical port is blocked and the limit sheet 4 is stuck on the slope on the locking limit portion 12 on the sheath to lock the sheath 8 and the sheath wall 6 of the sheath 8 to block the optical fiber head 7, thereby preventing the optical fiber head 7 from being randomly allocated from the optical adapter 2 optical port”) • when the mechanical actuator is in the second position, the protective enclosure is in the uncovered position (p. 5, 5th ¶: "According to the schematic diagram of the unlock state of the optical interface protection component of the optical adapter shown in FIG. 3, the limit sheet 4 of the mounting base 9 is pressed to unlock, the sheath 8 is rotated upwards, the sheath wall 6 is unlocked from the optical fiber head 7, Out of the fiber head 7.”) The subject-matter of claim 1 therefore differs from this known fiber-optic communication system in that a. there is an optical light source that provides one or more optical signals through the receptacle based at least in part on receiving one or more electrical signals, b. when the mechanical actuator is in the first position the optical light source is powered on, and when the mechanical actuator is in the second position power to the optical light source is removed or reduced. There is a commonality between the two distinguishing features as they relate to the optical light source and its status. The problem to be solved by the present invention may therefore be regarded as how to provide an additional safety mechanism. The solution proposed in claim 1 of the present application cannot be considered as inventive. Chen (p. 1, 1st ¶ in “Background” section) considers the existence of an optical light source which is considered an obvious design option. The skilled person would, for example, find document Wischnewski in which a similar structure is shown. Wischnewski (figures 1-7) discloses a system (10) with an actuator (locking element 30 coupled with actuator 22a) that has the multiple purpose of locking/unlocking the optical fiber connector (¶ 0096: " ... when the locking element 30 is in the locked configuration, in which the locking element locks the optical fiber connector in position" .... "When the locking element 30 is in the unlocked configuration, in which the locking element 30 unlocks the optical fiber connector, which can then be freely attached or detached from the coupling mechanism 16'), unblocking/blocking the light path via a lid element ((¶ 0096 explains the correlation between locked configuration and open lid), and also to set the light source active only when the lid is in the open position, corresponding to the locked configuration ((¶ 0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when confronted with the above technical problem to adapt the fiber optic communication system of Chen according to the teachings of Wischnewski and arrive at the proposed solution without exercising inventive skills. Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 is rejected. Regarding claim 2, a mechanical linkage that couples to the protective enclosure to the mechanical actuator, wherein the mechanical linkage translates mechanical energy from movement of the mechanical actuator between the first position and the second position to mechanical energy to move the protective enclosure between the covered position and the uncovered position is at a minimum obvious [e.g., See Chen (hinged operation of sheath 8) and also Wischnewski (figure 5)]. Regarding claim 3, having the protective enclosure moving linearly between the covered position and the uncovered position when the mechanical actuator moves between the first position and the second position is an obvious design alternative. Regarding claim 4, a hinge that couples the protective enclosure to the faceplate, wherein the protective enclosure moves rotationally, about the hinge, between the covered position and the uncovered position when the mechanical actuator moves between the first position and the second position: (e.g., Chen hinged operation of sheath 8 and also Wischnewski figure 5). Regarding claims 8, 9, 16 having the mechanical actuator comprising a sliding linear mechanical lever, a dial a knob and/or sliding linear mechanical lever coupled to the protective enclosure are well known design options. Regarding claims 10 and 11 having the optical light source comprising an optical amplifier or a laser are obvious design options. Regarding claims 17-20, the method of claims 17-18 is straightforward in view of the structure disclosed or rendered as obvious in the discussions above. Furthermore, regarding claims 19-20, an actuator that moves a protective closure linearly or rotationally are obvious design variations well-known to the skilled artisan. Allowable Subject Matter The combination of the features of dependent claim 5 (and claims 6-7 as being dependent therefrom) is neither known from, nor rendered obvious by, the available prior art. Having the mechanical actuator being moved from the first position to the second position, including a first movement signal provided to an electromechanical device to move the protective enclosure to the uncovered position, and also having the mechanical actuator being moved from the second position to the first position, including a second movement signal provided to the electromechanical device to move the protective enclosure to the covered position solves the problem of remote control of the protective enclosure. None of the cited prior art discloses this feature or suggests its use. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Frith (US 20080232746) discloses an actuator mechanism to expand or shrink to receive/grip light guides. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>. /MICHAEL P MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 22, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596226
Monolithically integrated optical assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591095
TECHNIQUES FOR GRATING COUPLER AND EDGE COUPLER INTEGRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585066
OPTICAL NETWORK DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PACKAGING OPTICAL NETWORK DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578535
OPTICAL WAVEGUIDE COMPONENT AND METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12560760
SEMICONDUCTOR PHOTONICS DEVICE AND METHODS OF FORMATION
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+8.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 764 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