Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/685,312

OPTICAL COMPUTING DEVICE, OPTICAL COMPUTING METHOD, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR OPTICAL COMPUTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 21, 2024
Examiner
DOAN, JENNIFER
Art Unit
2874
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Fujikura Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
763 granted / 841 resolved
+22.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
866
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
42.3%
+2.3% vs TC avg
§102
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§112
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 841 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 . Information Disclosure Statement 2. The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 05/20/24, have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO/SB/08a). Specification 3. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hitoshi et al. (JP 0943654 A). With respect to claim 1, Hitoshi et al. (figures 1-10) disclose an optical computing device comprising: an optical modulation element group including optical modulation elements (LCD cell 1), wherein the optical modulation element group executes: first optical computing with respect to a first signal light (18) traveling along an optical path (computation light from the computation light source unit 18, and finally the final result is output to the light receiving element array 17 ([0045]) and (wavelength 620 nm is selected as the computational light, regardless of whether the pixels of the second liquid crystal cell are on or off, transmitted light is obtained with almost maximum transmittance when the pixels of the first liquid crystal cell are on, and almost no transmitted light is obtained when they are off. At this time, image information A from the first liquid crystal cell will be output, [0039]), and second optical computing with respect to a second signal light traveling along the optical path in a direction opposite to a traveling direction of the first signal light ((light with a wavelength of 460 nm is selected as the computational light, regardless of whether the pixels of the first liquid crystal cell are on or off, transmitted light from the on pixels of the second liquid crystal cell is obtained with almost maximum transmittance, while almost no transmitted light is obtained from the off pixels. Therefore, at this time, image information B from the second liquid crystal cell will be output, [0039]). With respect to claim 15, Hitoshi et al. (figures 1-10) disclose an optical computing method comprising executing, by an optical modulation element group, first optical computing with respect to a first signal light traveling along an optical path (computation light from the computation light source unit 18, and finally the final result is output to the light receiving element array 17 ([0045]) and (wavelength 620 nm is selected as the computational light, regardless of whether the pixels of the second liquid crystal cell are on or off, transmitted light is obtained with almost maximum transmittance when the pixels of the first liquid crystal cell are on, and almost no transmitted light is obtained when they are off. At this time, image information A from the first liquid crystal cell will be output, [0039]); and executing, the optical modulation element group, second optical computing with respect to a second signal light traveling along the optical path in a direction opposite to a traveling direction of the first signal light (light with a wavelength of 460 nm is selected as the computational light, regardless of whether the pixels of the first liquid crystal cell are on or off, transmitted light from the on pixels of the second liquid crystal cell is obtained with almost maximum transmittance, while almost no transmitted light is obtained from the off pixels. Therefore, at this time, image information B from the second liquid crystal cell will be output ([0039]), wherein the optical modulation element group includes optical modulation elements (LCD cell 1). With respect to claim 16, Hitoshi et al. (figures 1-10) disclose a method for manufacturing an optical computing device that includes an optical modulation element group including optical modulation elements, the method comprising creating the optical modulation element group such that the optical modulation element group (LCD cell 1) executes first optical computing with respect to a first signal light traveling along an optical path and predetermined second optical computing with respect to a second signal light traveling along the optical path in a direction opposite to a traveling direction of the first signal light (computation light from the computation light source unit 18, and finally the final result is output to the light receiving element array 17 ([0045]) and (wavelength 620 nm is selected as the computational light, regardless of whether the pixels of the second liquid crystal cell are on or off, transmitted light is obtained with almost maximum transmittance when the pixels of the first liquid crystal cell are on, and almost no transmitted light is obtained when they are off. At this time, image information A from the first liquid crystal cell will be output, [0039] and light with a wavelength of 460 nm is selected as the computational light, regardless of whether the pixels of the first liquid crystal cell are on or off, transmitted light from the on pixels of the second liquid crystal cell is obtained with almost maximum transmittance, while almost no transmitted light is obtained from the off pixels. Therefore, at this time, image information B from the second liquid crystal cell will be output, [0039]). PNG media_image1.png 304 646 media_image1.png Greyscale With respect to claim 2, Hitoshi et al. disclose the optical computing device, wherein each of the optical modulation elements includes cells having either thicknesses that are independently set or refractive indices that are independently set ([0027] and [0028]). With respect to claim 3, Hitoshi et al. disclose the optical computing device, wherein the optical computing device independently controls the refractive indices of the cells ([0045]). With respect to claim 5, Hitoshi et al. disclose the optical computing device, the optical modulation elements (LCD cell 1) are arranged along the optical path (figure 1). With respect to claim 6, Hitoshi et al. disclose the optical computing device, wherein a type of the first optical computing is different from a type of the second optical computing ([0039], [0045]). With respect to claim 7, Hitoshi et al. disclose the optical computing device, wherein a type of the first optical computing is the same as a type of the second optical computing ([0041]). With respect to claim 8, Hitoshi et al. disclose the optical computing device as shown in figure 1, (LCD cell 1). With respect to claim 9, Hitoshi et al. disclose the optical computing device (figures 1 and 11). With respect to claim 10, Hitoshi et al. disclose the optical computing device, wherein a wavelength of a first signal light (620 nm) is different from that of a second signal light (460 nm) ([0039]). With respect to claim 11, Hitoshi et al. disclose the optical computing device as shown in in figure 1. With respect to claim 12, Hitoshi et al. disclose the optical computing device (see [0047]). With respect to claim 13, Hitoshi et al. disclose the optical computing device (see figure 10a and [0039] and [0045]). With respect to claim 14, Hitoshi et al. disclose the optical computing device, further comprising a first optical element ([0045]) and a second optical element ([0039] and [0045]) and reflects (19) the other of the second signal light before the second optical computing and the first signal light after the first optical computing (figure 1). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) 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. 10. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hitoshi et al. (as cited above). With respect to claim 4, Hitoshi et al. substantially disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention except a gel includes the optical modulation elements in the gel. However, a gel includes the optical modulation elements in the gel is considered to be obvious to provide high performance of optical signal transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hitoshi et al. to include the above feature for the purpose of providing high performance of optical signal transmission. It is also noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Conclusion 11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tokutaka et al. (US-20190113684-A1) and Arahira (US-8331798-B2) disclose an optical modulator. 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Doan whose telephone number is (571) 272-2346. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 7:00am to 3:30pm. 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. /JENNIFER DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 21, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601887
TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596236
OPTICAL FIBER CABLE TRAY CLIP STRUCTURALLY CONFIGURED TO PIVOTALLY CONNECT TWO TRAYS TOGETHER TO LIMIT ACCESS TO LOWER TRAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585147
Parallel Microcavity Trimming by Structured-Laser Illumination
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585075
Module Assembly, Carrier Unit and Carrier Arrangement for the Fibre-Optic Distribution Industry
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571976
OPTICAL DISTRIBUTION AND SPLICE FRAME INCLUDING ENCLOSURES
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
91%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+6.0%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 841 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