Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/690,284

SUBMARINE BRANCHING UNIT, AND CONTROL METHOD

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Mar 08, 2024
Examiner
KRETZER, CASEY L
Art Unit
2635
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
NEC Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
608 granted / 700 resolved
+24.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
729
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
28.3%
-11.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 700 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/08/2024 is/are being considered by the examiner. Claim Interpretation Each claim of the present application recites “a submarine branching unit”. This recitation is not limiting because this language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Essentially, “submarine” is an intended environment in which the invention is used and “branching unit” is a purpose of the invention. Thus, this portion of the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02, II. Further regarding claim 9, the claim is essentially a method claim with one method step in the final clause and an extended preamble intending to recite a system on which the method is used. However, the only elements of the preamble recited in the method step are the first to third optical switches. Per MPEP § 2111.02, I, the parts of the preamble which limit the structure of claimed elements must be given patentable weight, which would be each switch having four terminals. However, the specific connections recited in the preamble are not recited nor referred to in the one method step and therefore do not “give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim per MPEP § 2111.02, second paragraph nor do they recite structural limitations of the switches (e.g. how a switch is connected to another switch does not describe a structure of either switch). Therefore, the specific connections between the terminals of the switches in the preamble of claim 9 will not be afforded patentable weight. 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Testa et al, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0169794. Regarding claim 9, Testa teaches a method for controlling a submarine branching unit, the submarine branching unit comprising first to third optical switches each comprising first to fourth terminals (see Testa Figure 4, OSEs 470-476 with left, right, top, and bottom terminals and paragraph [0048]), in which the first terminal of the first optical switch is connected to an input of a first line of a first path, the second terminal of the first optical switch is connected to the first terminal of the third optical switch, the third terminal of the first optical switch is connected to an output of the first line of a second path, the fourth terminal of the first optical switch is connected to the third terminal of the second optical switch, the first terminal of the second optical switch is connected to the third terminal of the third optical switch, the second terminal of the second optical switch is connected to an output of a second line of the first path, the fourth terminal of the second optical switch is connected to an input of a first line of a third path, the second terminal of the third optical switch is connected to an output of a second line of the third path, and the fourth terminal of the third optical switch is connected to an input of a second line of the second path (see above Claim Interpretation section), wherein the method comprises controlling (see paragraph [0053]) a connection of each of the first to third optical switches to a vertical connection or a horizontal connection based on a specified connection state (see Figures 5 and 6, which are embodiments of “on” and “off” states of OSEs 470-476 of Figure 4, and paragraphs [0049]-[0050]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-8 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art made of record fails to teach a submarine branching unit comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; first to third optical switches each comprising first to fourth terminals; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: control a connection of each of the first to third optical switches to a vertical connection or a horizontal connection based on a specified connection state, wherein the first terminal of the first optical switch is connected to an input of a first line of a first path, the second terminal of the first optical switch is connected to the first terminal of the third optical switch, the third terminal of the first optical switch is connected to an output of the first line of a second path, the fourth terminal of the first optical switch is connected to the third terminal of the second optical switch, the first terminal of the second optical switch is connected to the third terminal of the third optical switch, the second terminal of the second optical switch is connected to an output of a second line of the first path, the fourth terminal of the second optical switch is connected to an input of a first line of a third path, the second terminal of the third optical switch is connected to an output of a second line of the third path, and the fourth terminal of the third optical switch is connected to an input of a second line of the second path. Testa, cited above, generally teaches a submarine branching unit comprising: at least one memory storing instructions (see Testa paragraph [0066]); first to third optical switches each comprising first to fourth terminals (see Figure 4, OSEs 470-474 with left, right, top, and bottom terminals and paragraph [0048]); and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (see paragraph [0066]) to control (see paragraph [0053]) a connection of each of the first to third optical switches to a vertical connection or a horizontal connection based on a specified connection state (see Figures 5 and 6, which are embodiments of “on” and “off” states of OSEs 470-476 of Figure 4, and paragraphs [0049]-[0050]); wherein the first terminal of the first optical switch is connected to an input of a first line of a first path (see Figure 4, input 414 to OSE 470), the second terminal of the first optical switch is connected to the first terminal of the third optical switch (See Figure 4, connection 420 between OSE 470 and OSE 474), the third terminal of the first optical switch is connected to an output of the first line of a second path (see Figure 4, output 444 from OSE 470), the fourth terminal of the first optical switch is connected to the third terminal of the second optical switch (see Figure 4, connection between OSE 470 and OSE 474), the second terminal of the second optical switch is connected to an output of a second line of the first path (see Figure 4, output 440 from OSE 474), the fourth terminal of the second optical switch is connected to an input of a first line of a third path (see Figure 4, input 426 to OSE 474), the second terminal of the third optical switch is connected to an output of a second line of the third path (see Figure 4, output 446 from OSE 446), and the fourth terminal of the third optical switch is connected to an input of a second line of the second path (see Figure 4, input 418 to OSE 472). However, Testa does not teach the features highlighted above. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to alter the structure shown in Testa to arrive at the claimed invention without using impermissible hindsight as Figure 4 forms a complete mesh and altering the connections would fundamentally change the routing abilities. Independent claim 5 recites similar allowable features as claim 1, and is allowed under similar rationale. 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.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time. 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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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. /CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 08, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602894
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593971
SYSTEMS FOR TRACKING DISEASE PROGRESSION IN A PATIENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597285
IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592088
ANCHOR FOR LINE RECOGNITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591970
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETERMINING HEMODYNAMIC PARAMETERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 700 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