Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/531,831

Photocoupler

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 07, 2023
Examiner
LEPISTO, RYAN A
Art Unit
2874
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Matsusada Precision Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
1008 granted / 1146 resolved
+20.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1194
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
45.3%
+5.3% vs TC avg
§102
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
§112
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1146 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 includes the remnants of claim 6, including the preamble of old claim 6. The claim will be examined withs respect to the list of limitations and the assumption that the claim should only depend from claim 2. The claim also includes “the second guide part” that does not have antecedent basis. 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. Claims 1-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al (JP H11-261103A) and the corresponding machine translation. Sato teaches: 1. A photocoupler (Figs. 1-4) with a light emitting part (10), a light receiving part (20), and a housing (30, 43), wherein: the light emitting part (10) is a discrete part including a light emitting element (13) that emits light (P0012), an input side terminal (15) electrically connected to the light emitting element (10), and a first covering part (11) that covers the light emitting element (13); the light receiving part (20) is a discrete part including a light receiving element (23) that receives light from the light emitting element (13), an output side terminal (25) electrically connected to the light receiving element (23), and a second covering part (21) that covers the light receiving element (23); the housing (30, 43) has there-within an internal space that accommodates the light emitting element (13) and the light receiving element (13) (see Figs. 3-4); the housing (30, 43) includes an input side through hole (part of 43 at 15) and an output side through hole (part of 43 at 25) provided at different positions (see Fig. 3b, the terminals 15, 25 extend through a hole between 43 and 30; page 9 of the translation, paragraph starting with “The abutting portion” to the paragraph starting with “The light exits from 2”); and the input side terminal (15) is inserted into the input side through hole (between/through 30, 43) and protrudes from the internal space to outside of the housing (30, 43) (see Fig. 3); wherein the output side terminal (25) is inserted into the output side through hole (between/through 30, 43) and protrudes from the internal space to outside of the housing (30, 43) (see Fig. 3). 2. The photocoupler according to claim 1, wherein: the light emitting element (13) and the light receiving element (23) face each other in one direction (see Fig. 3), and the housing (30, 43) includes a bottom part (43) that covers lower parts of the light emitting element (part of 10) and the light receiving element (part of 20), a ceiling part (31d) that covers upper parts of the light emitting element (part of 10) and the light receiving element (part of 20), and first and second side surface parts (31a, b) facing each other in the one direction (see Fig. 4). 3. The photocoupler according to claim 2, wherein: the housing (30, 43) further includes a mark indicating a direction from the input side terminal to the output side terminal (see Fig. 3a, the indica mark above the emitter side). 4. The photocoupler according to claim 2, wherein: the housing (30, 43) further includes a protrusion (see the legs in Fig. 3a and/or 31e, f in Fig. 4b) protruding downward from the bottom part (43). 5. The photocoupler according to claim 2, wherein: the housing (30, 44) further includes a first guide part provided between the light emitting element (part of 10) and the first side surface part (31a), and the light emitting part (part of 10) further includes a mounting part (part of 11, 11b) that constitutes a space that accommodates the light emitting element (13) together with the first covering part (31d) (see Fig. 3), there are the two input side terminals (15a, b), each of the two input side terminals (15a, b) passing through the mounting (part of 11, 11b) the output side through hole (between/through 43 and the side of 31) is provided in at least one of the bottom part (43) (see Fig. 3, 4). 6. The photocoupler according to claim 1, wherein: the housing is black (page 8 of the translation, paragraph starting “the open portion 31c). 8. The photocoupler according to claim 1, further comprising: an optical fiber (41), wherein light from the light emitting element (13) travels inside the optical fiber (41) and enters the light receiving element (23). 9. The photocoupler according to claim 1, wherein: the light emitting part (10) further includes a mounting part (part of 11, 11b) that constitutes a space that accommodates the light emitting element (13) together with the first covering part (11), there are the two input side terminals (15a, b), each of the two input side terminals (15a, b) passing through the mounting part (11b), the second covering part (part of 21, 21b) seals the light receiving element (23), and there are the two output side terminals (25a, b), and each of the two output side terminals (25a, b) protrudes from the second covering part (21b). 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. 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato. Sato teaches the photocoupler previously discussed, but does not state that the input side terminal is removable from the input side through hole, and the output side terminal is removable from the output side through hole. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try making the light emitting and receiving parts, and therefore the corresponding side terminals, removable from the housing, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. It would be predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art to be able to remove the emitter or receiver along with their integral terminals and one would expect them to be removable from the bottom at 43 and the sides of the housing since this is where these components are housed. Further, In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) says that the court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.". Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art would identify a need for the emitter and receiver be removable since either component can fail and need replacement, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the side terminals be removable from the holes that house them. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach photocouplers with optical fibers coupling the emitter and receiver: JP 61-67969A, JP 2-65182, JP H6-14562, JPH10-214990, CN-111865296A. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST M-F. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 07, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591090
HOLLOW-CORE PHOTONIC CRYSTAL FIBER BASED EDIBLE OIL SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585077
FIBER OPTIC HOUSING AND CLIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12554069
MULTI-DIRECTIONAL ADAPTIVE OPTICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12541063
FERRULE HOLDER FOR MINIATURE MT FERRULE AND ADAPTER INTERFACE FOR MATING WITH FIBER OPTIC CONNECTORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12535641
OPTICAL CONNECTOR AND OPTICAL CONNECTOR MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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
96%
With Interview (+7.7%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1146 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