DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments filed on both February 3, 2026 and the supplemental amendment as filed on March 18, 2026. In accordance with these two amendments, examined claims 1-5, 8, and 18-23 have been amended (on 2/3/26) and further amendments have been made to sole examined independent claim 1 (on 3/18/26). Claims 1-23 remain pending (claims 6, 7, and 9-17 remain “Withdrawn” from consideration as being related to non-elected Groups).
Claims 1-5, 8, and 18-23 are objected herein with features found objectionable in at least sole independent claim 1. Further, dependent claims 2-4 and 18 are rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) – see below for full explanation.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, 8, and 18-23, is again noted, from the reply filed on July 29, 2025. Claims 6, 7, and 9-17 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant should formally cancel these non-elected claims in response to this final rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding independent claim 1, the term “the waveguide segments” should read “the two waveguide segments” in all instances and not be shortened. Also noting claim 1, although this is not a formal claim objection, the term “a gate electrode” at the conclusion of this claim, should be reviewed. Note that plural gate electrodes (15a and 15b) are shown in the drawings (Fig. 1), as well as “the gate electrodes” being recited in dependent claims 2-4. This issue in claim 1 is the basis for at least some of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below for lack of proper antecedent basis. Further regarding dependent claim 2, the term “their” in “at their underside” and “with their upper side” should be reviewed because generic identifiers such as “their” (or “its”) should be avoided in US PTO claim language. Regarding claim 4, the term “the waveguide segments” should read “the two waveguide segments” for consistency. Regarding claim 18, the term “RMS” should be written out fully once before abbreviation. Further regarding claim 18, the features “the active element or one of the active elements” should be reviewed as this is the basis for the lack of antecedent basis below in section 35 U.S.C. 112(b). 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 2-4 and 18 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.
Claims 2-4 recite the limitation "the gate electrodes” and “each of the gate electrodes" in the claim body of these dependent claims. Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1, which recites “a gate electrode.” Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these further limitation(s) in the dependent claim(s), because only one gate electrode is claimed in the independent claim. Claims 2-4 are herein rejected as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lacking proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 18, the term feature of “the active element or one of the active elements” lacks proper antecedent basis. Only one active element is found within claim 1, and claim 18 cannot refer to a plural term (“active elements”) which have not been defined. Claim 18 is therefore rejected as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lacking proper antecedent basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Other than the minor informalities listed above, claim 1 is otherwise allowable over the closest “Prior Art” of record. Claim 1 is the sole pending independent claim at issue during examination.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art of record (Suzuki US ‘121; Niu CN ‘104) does not expressly teach or reasonably suggest, in combination, such features in which the “gate electrode(s)” (see Fig. 1 elements 15a / 15b) are located on the side of the “two waveguide segments” (Fig. 1 elements 12a / 12b) with a “gap” extending therebetween (Fig. 1 element 14) which faces the “active element” (Fig. 1 element 13). Such positioning of the two gate electrodes between the segmented / gapped optical waveguides and the active element (which absorbs light to generate an electrical photo-signal), in a photodetector, is not found anticipated or made reasonably obvious by the closest prior art found in the current record. Further, the Examiner must consider the context of such amended features (both 2/3/26 and 3/18/26) in view of the original specification and drawings (most notably Fig. 1). Suzuki US ‘121 is the single closest prior art found in the current record. For these reasons, the Examiner is unable to present a prima facie case of obviousness to amended claim 1 as required under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 2-5, 8, and 18-23 are also allowable (over prior art) at least as being in dependent claim form. However, claims 2-4 and 18 are rejected as lacking proper antecedent basis under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and other “Claim Objections” are found within claims 2, 3, and 18.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment with remarks (pages 11-16), filed February 3, 2026, with respect to the claim amendments to attempt to distinguish independent claim 1 from the prior art (cited in the non-final rejection as mailed on November 3, 2025) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Based on the narrowing amendments of at least independent claim 1 to more closely conform to the embodiment of Applicant’s Figure 1, all prior art rejections as mailed on November 3, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Numerous issues remain with pending claims regarding “Claim Objections” and “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112(b)”, note the full explanations above. Further, claims 6, 7, and 9-17 must be formally canceled as they are Withdrawn and non-elected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Corrections to claims 1-4 and 18 must be made; note also that Withdrawn claims 6, 7, and 9-17 must be formally canceled in response to this Final Rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 May 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights