Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/958,980

PHASE-MODULATED OPTICAL DATA STORAGE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Nov 25, 2024
Examiner
SASINOWSKI, ANDREW
Art Unit
2625
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
664 granted / 855 resolved
+15.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
9 currently pending
Career history
864
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
§103
43.6%
+3.6% vs TC avg
§102
35.7%
-4.3% vs TC avg
§112
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 855 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 . 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. Claims 1-2 6-9, 11, 13 and 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shino et. al. [2009/0067313]. Regarding claim 1, Shino teaches: A method of reading data from an optical data storage medium, the method comprising: capturing an image of a plurality of voxels embedded in a transparent substrate using a refractive-index-sensitive microscope [fig. 1, note three-dimensional pits formed on recording layers 1a-1f, also note §0038 wherein the refractive index is altered depending upon the layer to be read]; and processing the image to recover data stored in the transparent substrate, wherein portions of the image have different signal intensities encoding different data symbols [§0039, note reproducing of pits for determining the data] Regarding claim 2, Shino further teaches: wherein capturing the image of the plurality of voxels comprises capturing a first image using first focusing parameters and capturing a second image using second focusing parameters being different from the first focusing parameters [fig. 1, note three-dimensional pits formed on recording layers 1a-1f, also note §0038 wherein the refractive index is altered depending upon the layer to be read]; Regarding claim 11, Shino teaches: A system for reading a plurality of voxels embedded in a transparent substrate, the system comprising: a refractive-index-sensitive microscope; and a controller configured to capture an image of the plurality of voxels embedded in the transparent substrate using the refractive-index-sensitive microscope [fig. 1, note three-dimensional pits formed on recording layers 1a-1f, also note §0038 wherein the refractive index is altered depending upon the layer to be read], and process the image to recover data stored in the transparent substrate, wherein portions of the image have different signal intensities encoding different data symbols [§0039, note reproducing of pits for determining the data] Regarding claim 13, Shino further teaches: wherein the controller is configured to capture the image of the plurality of voxels by capturing a first image using first focusing parameters and capturing a second image using second focusing parameters being different from the first focusing parameters [fig. 1, note three-dimensional pits formed on recording layers 1a-1f, also note §0038 wherein the refractive index is altered depending upon the layer to be read];. Regarding claim 17, Shino teaches: A method comprising: obtaining an image of a plurality of voxels embedded in a transparent substrate captured by a refractive-index-sensitive microscope [fig. 1, note three-dimensional pits formed on recording layers 1a-1f, also note §0038 wherein the refractive index is altered depending upon the layer to be read]; and processing the image to recover data stored in the transparent substrate, wherein portions of the image have different signal intensities encoding different data symbols [§0039, note reproducing of pits for determining the data] Claims 6-9, 16 and 19 all recite that the voxels are arranged as a fiduciary mark. This claim element is simply a statement of intended use of the method/system, and as such does not contain any additional patentably distinct subject matter. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-5, 10, 12, 14-15, 18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not teach “…wherein the plurality of voxels comprises inhomogeneous voxels each comprising a positive sublayer and a negative sublayer, and wherein capturing the first image comprises capturing an image of the positive sublayer, and capturing the second image comprises capturing an image of the negative sublayer.” Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach “…wherein processing the image to recover the data stored in the transparent substrate comprises subtracting the first image from the second image.” Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record does not teach “…wherein processing the image comprises processing the image using a machine learning model, the machine learning model having been trained using images of voxels having labels representing data symbols encoded by the voxels.” Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not teach “…wherein the refractive-index-sensitive microscope includes a phase-contrast microscope or a differential-interference-contrast microscope.” Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record does not teach “…wherein the plurality of voxels comprises inhomogeneous voxels each comprising a positive sublayer and a negative sublayer, and wherein the controller is configured to capture the first image by capturing an image of the positive sublayer, and to capture the second image by capturing an image of the negative sublayer.” Regarding claim 15, the prior art does not teach “…wherein the controller comprises a machine learning model that has been trained using images of voxels having labels representing data symbols encoded by the voxels, and wherein the controller is configured to process the image by using the machine learning model.” Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record does not teach “…wherein the plurality of voxels comprises inhomogeneous voxels each comprising a positive sublayer and a negative sublayer, the image is a first image of the positive sublayer, the method further comprises obtaining a second image of the negative sublayer, and wherein processing the image to recover the data stored in the transparent substrate comprises subtracting the first image from the second image.” Regarding claims 10 and 20, the prior art of record does not teach “…wherein a subset of the plurality of voxels comprises shingled voxels, and processing the image comprises detecting changes in intensity of a phase shift as a function of position to resolve the shingled voxels.” Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Black [10,672,428], Georgiou [10,181,336], Travis [2015/0277551] and Georgiou [10,236,027]. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SASINOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5883. The examiner can normally be reached 7am - 4pm, Mon.-Fri. 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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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. /ANDREW SASINOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 25, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592249
HEAT ASSISTED MAGNETIC RECORDING WRITER HAVING A NOTCHED WRITE POLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578788
Persistent Human-Machine Interfaces via Gaze and Eye Direction Tracking
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573339
DISPLAY DEVICE OPERATING WITH TIME-DIVISION AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567362
DISPLAY DEVICE, METHOD OF DRIVING THE DISPLAY DEVICE, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12567381
DRIVING CONTROLLER AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
78%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+12.0%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 855 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