Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 18, 2026
Application No. 18/844,178

RESONATOR, METAMATERIAL, OPTICAL ELEMENT, AND OPTICAL DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 05, 2024
Priority
Mar 16, 2022 — JP 2022-041190 +1 more
Examiner
WONG, ERIC K
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Sony Group Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3m
Est. Remaining
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
782 granted / 933 resolved
+23.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
973
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
52.3%
+12.3% vs TC avg
§102
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
§112
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 933 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 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 5-6 and 12 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. Claim 5 recites a “size of the resonator” as being less than or equal to 800nm. It is unclear as to what dimension this refers to. Is the entire device 800nm or each unit cell? Claim 6 recites a “size of the two or more types of divided air holes” with no units of measurement. Claim 12 recites a percentage with no defined proportion as to what portion of the bandwidth is to be related to as a whole. 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) 1-4, 7-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0069377 to Wu et al. Wu discloses in the abstract and figures 1-8, a resonator comprising: A plurality of divided air holes in a unit cell (28; figure 1B), wherein The plurality of divided air holes includes two or more types of divided air holes different in dimension or shape or both (figure 1C and 4). As to claim 2, the holes are on the corners (figure 1B). As to claim 3, although shapes are recited, no specifics are claimed as to the orientation of these cut shapes. When a star-shaped polygon is rotated, it’s corner can be 90 degrees as in the prior art. As to claim 4, the rectangular shape of the prior art is a polygon. Claims 7-11 relate to the above and the figures show arrangement as claimed. Claims 19-20 relate to devices that use the above structure. Paragraph 86 of Wu discloses some of these devices. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. 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. Claim(s) 5-6 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu. Wu discloses the invention as claimed except for certain sizes or materials. Wu allows for dimensional size adjustments as shown in figure 1C. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the sizes and select known materials to achieve a desired output. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7,538,946 (figures 24a-24d for different shapes). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P. 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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 571-270-1739. 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. ERIC K. WONG Primary Examiner Art Unit 2874 /Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 05, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12704684
IMAGE DISPLAY APPARATUS AND IMAGE DISPLAY METHOD
2y 10m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12687673
MULTICORE OPTICAL FIBER WITH REDUCED CROSS TALK
2y 11m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12674939
LIGHT GUIDE PLATE
3y 0m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12669644
DESIGNS OF THERMAL INSULATION FOR MICRO-RING RESONATOR (MRR) IN ON-CAVITY PIC (OCPIC) TO ACHIEVE EFFECTIVE THERMAL TUNING
4y 3m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12645027
METHODS FOR PRODUCING HOLLOW-CORE OPTICAL FIBERS
2y 10m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+7.9%)
2y 2m (~3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 933 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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