Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/714,001

Optical Circuit Device, Integrated Optical Device And Method For Manufacturing Of Integrated Optical Device

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 28, 2024
Examiner
BROCK, PAUL MORGAN
Art Unit
2634
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allow Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
-62.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
19
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.1%
+11.1% vs TC avg
§102
33.3%
-6.7% vs TC avg
§112
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 0 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 1 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. Specifically, a portion of claim 1 states that “a demultiplexer that branches a part of the signal light,” and it is unclear whether the main signal from “the connection portion” is being branched or if the already branched “a part of the signal light input” is being further branched. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ooi (US Pat. 8,948,593 B2). Regarding Claim 1, Ooi teaches An optical circuit element (FIG. 4: 21) directly connected to an optical function element (FIG. 4: “FROM UPSTREAM NODE”), the optical circuit element comprising: an optical amplifier that amplifies signal light input through a connection portion with the optical function element (FIG. 4: 44b); and a connection tap port that is installed between the optical amplifier and the connection portion (FIG. 4: 42b), branches a part of the signal light input through the connection portion (FIG. 4: 42b, 45b), and outputs the signal light to the outside (Id.), wherein the connection tap port includes an input port to which the signal light is input through the connection portion (FIG. 4: 41b, 42b), a demultiplexer that branches a part of the signal light (FIG. 4: 45b), a first output port that outputs the branched part of the signal light to the outside (FIG. 4: 42b, 45b), and a second output port that outputs the rest of the signal light to the optical amplifier. (FIG. 4: 42b, 44b) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 2-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooi (US Pat. 8,948,593 B2) in light of ‘932 (JP2020516932A). Regarding Claim 2, Ooi teaches The optical circuit element according to claim 1, Ooi does not teach wherein the optical circuit element is a quartz-based planar lightwave circuit (PLC) installed on a Si substrate, or an optical circuit using silicon photonics (SiP), and the optical amplifier is installed on a substrate using an indium phosphide (InP) based material. ‘932 teaches wherein the optical circuit element is a quartz-based planar lightwave circuit (PLC) installed on a Si substrate, or an optical circuit using silicon photonics (SiP), and the optical amplifier is installed on a substrate using an indium phosphide (InP) based material. (p. 4 (describing different PLC arrangements)). Ooi and ‘932 both teach optical element arrangements for optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art. Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the circuit arrangement taught by Ooi into a PLC as taught by ‘932. The suggestion/motivation would have been to integrate the circuit arrangement taught by Ooi into the more compact and reliable medium of a PLC. Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Ooi and ‘932 teach The optical circuit element according to claim 1, further comprising: an optical path converter that converts a part of the branched optical path of the signal light output from the first output port in a direction perpendicular to a substrate surface, wherein the optical path converter is a grating mirror or a mirror. (‘932, p. 5, ¶ 11-13) Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the circuit arrangement taught by Ooi into a PLC as taught by ‘932. The suggestion/motivation would have been to integrate the circuit arrangement taught by Ooi into the more compact and reliable medium of a PLC. Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Ooi and ‘932 teach An integrated optical device, wherein the optical circuit element according to claim 1 and the optical function element are directly connected. (‘932, p. 4 (teaching a PLC where elements would be directly connected)). Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the circuit arrangement taught by Ooi into a PLC as taught by ‘932. The suggestion/motivation would have been to integrate the circuit arrangement taught by Ooi into the more compact and reliable medium of a PLC. Regarding Claim 5 the combination of Ooi and ‘932 teach A method for manufacturing the integrated optical device according to claim 4, the method comprising: preparing the optical circuit element and the optical function element; (‘932, p. 4, ¶ 5, 8) fixing the optical function element; adjusting an end surface of a waveguide of the optical circuit element and an end surface of a waveguide of the optical function element to be parallel to each other; (Id.) aligning while monitoring a branched part of the signal light output from the first output port; (‘932, p. 6, ¶ 6, 7) and connecting the optical circuit element and the optical function element. (Id.). Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Ooi and ‘932 teach The optical circuit element according to claim 2, further comprising: an optical path converter that converts a part of the branched optical path of the signal light output from the first output port in a direction perpendicular to a substrate surface, wherein the optical path converter is a grating mirror or a mirror. (‘932, p. 4, ¶ 8). Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the circuit arrangement taught by Ooi into a PLC as taught by ‘932. The suggestion/motivation would have been to integrate the circuit arrangement taught by Ooi into the more compact and reliable medium of a PLC. Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Ooi and ‘932 teach An integrated optical device, wherein the optical circuit element according to claim 2 and the optical function element are directly connected. (‘932, p. 4 (teaching a PLC where elements would be directly connected)). Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the circuit arrangement taught by Ooi into a PLC as taught by ‘932. The suggestion/motivation would have been to integrate the circuit arrangement taught by Ooi into the more compact and reliable medium of a PLC. Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Ooi and ‘932 teach An integrated optical device, wherein the optical circuit element according to claim 3 and the optical function element are directly connected. (‘932, p. 4 (teaching a PLC where elements would be directly connected)). Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the circuit arrangement taught by Ooi into a PLC as taught by ‘932. The suggestion/motivation would have been to integrate the circuit arrangement taught by Ooi into the more compact and reliable medium of a PLC. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BROCK whose telephone number is (571)272-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30pm. 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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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. /PAUL MORGAN BROCK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2634 March 3, 2026 /KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 28, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

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
Grant Probability
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 0 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