Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/693,014

OPTICAL PULSE TEST METHOD AND OPTICAL PULSE TEST EQUIPMENT

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 18, 2024
Examiner
HUANG, DAVID Z
Art Unit
2855
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
NTT, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
546 granted / 685 resolved
+11.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
713
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
§112
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 685 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 Objections Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, line 2, “by means of a phase OTDR” should be changed to either --by means a phase optical time-domain reflectometry (OTDR) system--, --by means of a phase optical time-domain reflectometry (OTDR) method--, or --by means of phase optical time-domain reflectometry (OTDR) --. Regarding claim 1, line 28, “[Math. C1]” should be deleted. Regarding claim 2, it is dependent on claim 1. Regarding claim 3, line 2, “by means of a phase OTDR” should be changed to either --by means a phase optical time-domain reflectometry (OTDR) system--, --by means of a phase optical time-domain reflectometry (OTDR) method--, or --by means of phase optical time-domain reflectometry (OTDR) --. Regarding claim 3, line 7, “the optical frequency” should be changed to --the optical frequency in the specific optical pulse pair--. Regarding claim 3, line 27, “[Math. C2]” should be deleted. Regarding claim 4, it is dependent on claim 3. 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 1-4 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. Regarding claim 1, the last paragraph states that “Aave,c represents an average value of the gradients Ak,c with respect to k, provided that, when the optical frequency multiplexing for suppressing fading noise is not performed, the averaging process for suppressing fading noise is not performed in the above-mentioned procedures.” It is unclear as to what is being referred to. There are no previous limitations which explicitly describes any steps of optical frequency multiplexing for suppressing fading noise. The claim describes suppressing fading noise by averaging signals of different optical frequencies (which seems to be referred to by “the averaging process” from the quoted limitation above). The claim also generally describes making optical pulses incident on a sensing fiber, which can be broadly interpreted as optical frequency multiplexing. It is unclear as to what exactly “the optical frequency multiplexing for suppressing fading noise” is referring to. Regarding claim 2, the claim recites acquiring a signal from “a normal optical pulse pair other than the specific optical pulse pair”. It is unclear as to where this normal optical pulse pair is from. There is no method step of making this normal optical pulse pair previously recited. Based on the rest of the limitations in the claim, it appears as though this normal optical pulse is also incident on the same sensing fiber as the specific optical pulse pair. Is the normal optical pulse incident on the sensing fiber at the same time as the specific optical pulse pair, or is the normal optical pulse pair introduced at a separate time than the specific optical pulse pair? Regarding claim 2, line 5, the claim recites “detecting the phase value of the optical pulse pair”. It is unclear as to whether or not this is referring to the normal optical pulse pair or the specific optical pulse pair. Regarding claim 3, the last paragraph states that “Aave,c represents an average value of the gradients Ak,c with respect to k, provided that, when the optical frequency multiplexing for suppressing fading noise is not performed, the averaging process for suppressing fading noise is not performed in the above-mentioned procedures.” It is unclear as to what is being referred to. There are no previous limitations which explicitly describes any steps of optical frequency multiplexing for suppressing fading noise. The claim describes suppressing fading noise by averaging signals of different optical frequencies (which seems to be referred to by “the averaging process” from the quoted limitation above). The claim also generally describes making optical pulses incident on a sensing fiber, which can be broadly interpreted as optical frequency multiplexing. It is unclear as to what exactly “the optical frequency multiplexing for suppressing fading noise” is referring to. Regarding claim 4, the claim appears to be directed to a single claim which claims both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus [apparatus according to claim 3, wherein (recited method steps)]. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph - see MPEP 2173.05(p). Examiner suggests amending the claim so that it is clear what structure of the apparatus from claim 3 is further configured for each specific limitation (light receiver, signal processing unit, etc.). Regarding claim 4, the claim recites acquiring a signal from “a normal optical pulse pair other than the specific optical pulse pair”. It is unclear as to where this normal optical pulse pair is from. There is no limitation configured for making this normal optical pulse pair previously recited. Based on the rest of the limitations in the claim, it appears as though this normal optical pulse is also incident on the same sensing fiber as the specific optical pulse pair. Is the normal optical pulse created by the same light source and is it incident on the sensing fiber at the same time as the specific optical pulse pair, or is the normal optical pulse pair introduced at a separate time than the specific optical pulse pair? Regarding claim 4, line 4, the claim recites “the phase value of the optical pulse pair is detected”. It is unclear as to whether or not this is referring to the normal optical pulse pair or the specific optical pulse pair. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and claim objections, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 1 and 3, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the limitations regarding the specifically claimed steps of calculating, plotting, and correcting the phase values, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in the claims. Regarding claims 2 and 4, they are dependent on claims 1 and 3. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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. /DAVID Z HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 18, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601659
SYSTEM, APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR LANDFILL GAS SENSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601653
ASSEMBLY POINT SYSTEM WITH ACTIVE AIR QUALITY AND INDUSTRIAL GAS EMISSIONS MONITORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601656
ROLLING BEARING ABNORMALITY DETECTION DEVICE AND ROLLING BEARING ABNORMALITY DETECTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596051
AUTO TEST CIRCUIT USING AN INTENSIFIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596058
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETERMINING A SAMPLE STREAM CONCENTRATION VALUE OF AN ANALYTE IN A SAMPLE STREAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
80%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+13.7%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 685 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