Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/809,402

OPTICAL FILTER FOR AN OPTICAL SENSOR DEVICE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Aug 20, 2024
Examiner
AHMED, JAMIL
Art Unit
2877
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
VIAVI SOLUTIONS INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
559 granted / 683 resolved
+13.8% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
711
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
§103
53.8%
+13.8% vs TC avg
§102
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 683 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Double Patenting 2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1 and 2 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12092522 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is broader than the patent, therefore, the patented claims anticipate the instant claims. Claims 1 and 2 of the instant application correspond to the patented claims as follows: Instant application USPAT 12092522 B2 1, 2 1, 2 Allowable Subject Matter 3. Claims 1-20 would be allowable once the Double Patenting rejection set forth in this Office Action is overcome. Reason for Allowance 4. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: 5. As to claim 1, the prior arts of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of “the first set of optical channels comprising: a first optical channel configured to pass a first color of light, a second optical channel configured to pass a second color of light, and a third optical channel configured to pass a third color of light, the first optical channel being adjacent to the second optical channel and the third optical channel” along with all other limitations of claim 1. 6. As to claim 8, the prior arts of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of “a first set of optical channels, comprising: a first optical channel configured to pass a first subrange of a first color of light, and a second optical channel configured to pass a second subrange of the first color of light; and a second set of optical channels, comprising: a third optical channel configured to pass a first subrange of a second color of light, and a fourth optical channel configured to pass a second subrange of the second color of light, wherein a first region of the optical filter includes the first optical channel and the third optical channel, and wherein a second region of the optical filter includes the second optical channel and the fourth optical channel” along with all other limitations of claim 8. 7. As to claim 15, the prior arts of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of “wherein the first subregion includes: a first optical channel configured to pass a first subrange of a first color of light, and a second optical channel configured to pass a first subrange of a second color of light, and wherein the second subregion includes: a third optical channel configured to pass a second subrange of the first color of light, and a fourth optical channel configured to pass a second subrange of the second color of light; and a second region” along with all other limitations of claim 15. 8. Yamashita (US 2019/0020857 A1) teaches an optical filter but fails to teach the claimed limitations. 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 JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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. /JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 20, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601692
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING FOREIGN OBJECT DEBRIS WITHIN A STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596184
LIDAR, CONTROL METHOD OF LIDAR, AND ADDRESSING CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596069
METHOD FOR EVALUATING DEGASSING EFFECT OF CROSS-LINKED POLYETHYLENE CABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584793
COLOR MEASUREMENT APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584863
LASER INDUCED BREAKDOWN SPECTROSCOPY FOR GEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
82%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+15.2%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 683 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