Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/688,451

WAVELENGTH CONVERSION DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Mar 01, 2024
Examiner
PETKOVSEK, DANIEL
Art Unit
2874
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Korea Research Institute Of Standards And Science
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
1316 granted / 1572 resolved
+15.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1606
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.3%
+0.3% vs TC avg
§102
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§112
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1572 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on March 1, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1 and 11 in independent claim form. 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on March 1, 2024, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449). Drawings The original drawings (seven (7) pages) were received on March 1, 2024. These drawings are acknowledged. Claim Objections Claims 3, 6, 13, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding dependent claims 3 and 13, the phrase “the wavelength of the output light corresponds to the period formed in the thermal wavelength”, should be corrected to “the wavelength of the output light corresponds to a period, of the different periods depending on a/the position of the nonlinear optical crystal, formed in the thermal waveguide.” First, the term “the period” is improper because it is unclear which period is being referred (of the “different periods” depending on a (current) position of the nonlinear optical crystal), and further explanation and identifiers should be listed as shown above. Second, the typo “thermal wavelength” should read “thermal waveguide” for consistency with claim 1. Claims 6 and 16 are also objected to at least as being dependent upon claims 3 and 13, respectively. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 3-6 and 13-16 are 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. Claims 3 and 13 recite the limitations in the phrase “the wavelength of the output light corresponds to the period formed in the thermal wavelength” in the claim body. However, such features lack proper antecedent basis for which is being referred to as “the period” and “the wavelength.” The claim term “the period” yields an unclear claim feature, of the “different periods” depending on a (current) position of the nonlinear optical crystal, and therefore further explanation and identifiers should be outlined. This phrase should be corrected, with an example such as: “the wavelength of the output light corresponds to a period, of the different periods depending on a/the position of the nonlinear optical crystal, formed in the thermal waveguide.” Additionally, there is no “thermal wavelength” in claim 1 and corrections should be made, although this appears to be an unintentional typo. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims 3 and 13. Claims 3, 6, 13, and 16 are thus rejected as being vague and indefinite under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lacking proper antecedent basis. Regarding claims 4-5 and 14-15, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claim language in claims 4 and 14 is “a KTP-based material such as PPKTP…” and must be corrected. For these reasons, and because claims 5 and 15 further depend from claims 4 and 14, respectively, claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected as being vague and indefinite under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 11 are allowed, with further dependent claims 2, 7-10, 12, and 17-20 also being allowed as being in dependent claim form. Each independent claim 1 and 11 is allowed based on their original claim features, as a whole and as arranged. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art of record (Kamijoh US ‘990; Hall US ‘191; Yamoto US ‘465; Furukawa US ‘648; JP ‘376; and JP ‘368) does not expressly teach or reasonably suggest, in combination, each claim limitation as arranged in independent claims 1 and 11. In particular, the Examiner must consider the context of these claims in view of the original specification and drawings. Most notable is the key feature of “a guide light source” (210; see Applicant’s Figs.1-4) which provides a guide light traveling in a first direction within the nonlinear optical crystal such that “a thermal waveguide (see 110, Fig. 5) penetrating the nonlinear optical crystal is formed” (by the guide light, during the optical propagation of the signal light and pump light). In other words, there is an additional “guide light” source which forms waveguiding features of the waveguide in the nonlinear optical crystal itself, and such features are not pre-formed in this crystal. Instead, there is a thermal waveguide formed in the nonlinear optical crystal by such guide light source during operation thereof (the guide light source not affecting optical coupling and frequency conversions of the separate signal/pump; note Fig. 5 in view of the overall “wavelength conversion device(s)” of Figs. 1-4). For these reasons, and based on the totality of the claimed features found in claims 1 and 11, the Examiner is unable to present either an anticipation rejection (under 35 U.S.C. 102) or a prima facie case of obviousness (under 35 U.S.C. 103). Claims 2, 7-10, 12, and 17-20 are also allowed at least as being in dependent claim form. Issues in dependent claims 3-6 and 13-16 are noted above and must be corrected. However, these claims are also drafted in dependent form and thus there are no prior art issues with these claims. The single closest prior art of record is Kamijoh US ‘990, which teaches (Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7) a wavelength conversion device in which: A wavelength conversion device (Figs. 1, 3, 5 and 7) comprising: a nonlinear optical crystal 10 / 40 / 110 / 210; However, there is no clear teaching or reasonable suggestion found in the closest prior art for such additional feature noted as missing in claims 1 / 11. Additionally, there is no clear motivation to combine such a “thermal waveguide” formation with a distinct “guide light source” for penetrating the NLO crystal. Other close prior art is Hall US ‘191 (see the thermally tunable feature 410 and 460 in Figs. 4A-4B); Yumoto US ‘465 (see thermal tuning of a PPLN crystal with waveguide; Figs. 5-8, 10-13, 25-26); Moulton US ‘834, which teaches a generic thermal waveguide with controllable (by light) coupling region; Furukawa US ‘648, using a signal light and pump light through a NLO crystal waveguide to generate sum frequency; and the two Japanese JP ‘376 (Figs. 4, 7, 9, and 10 in view of Fig. 1) and JP ‘368 (Figs. 6-7) documents which teach similar constructs to generate frequency conversion from multiple optical / laser sources. All such prior art (along with Kamijoh ‘990) is cited in the attached PTO-892 form references A-E, N, and O. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance. Inventorship 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 form references A-E, N, and O. Note the full explanation of relevance of each reference above in section (13). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM. 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (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 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. /DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 February 6, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 01, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596225
MANAGING ADHESIVE MATERIAL SHAPING USING STRUCTURE ARRAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591087
DISPLAY MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591086
LIGHT GUIDE AND VIDEO DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585110
COMPACT HEAD-MOUNTED DISPLAY SYSTEM HAVING SMALL INPUT APERTURE AND LARGE OUTPUT APERTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575893
Shape Sensing Fiber Optic Tip Protection Systems and Devices
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
84%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+10.5%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1572 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