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 .
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 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.
In addressing the rejection ground, each claim may not have been separately discussed to the extent the claimed features are the same as or similar to the previously-discussed features; the previous discussion is construed to apply for the other claims in the same or similar way.
In the office action, “/” should be read as and/or as generally understood. For example, “A/B” means A and B, or A or B.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/07/2026 has been entered.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia Berrios et al. (hereinafter Garcia; US 2021/0098222).
Regarding claim 1, Garcia discloses a vacuum electronic device [e.g. figs. 1-3] configured to provide electrical current configured to be optically modulated by incident light, said vacuum electronic device comprising: an optically gated field emission photocathode [e.g. 120/121] comprising photoconductive material comprising a wide band-gap semiconductor or an ultrawide band-gap semiconductor [see at least paras. 0016, 0043, 0058]; an anode [e.g. 130B-2] comprising a conductive material; and a gap [see the figs.] between said photocathode and said anode, wherein said gap comprises vacuum [see at least vacuum pump 115], wherein said anode and photocathode are configured to receive a voltage [e.g. VDC2] across the anode and photocathode, and said photocathode is configured to receive incident light from an external light source, such that when said photocathode is illuminated with said incident light, photocarriers are generated in said photoconductive material and electrons are emitted from said photocathode and travel through said gap such that said vacuum electronic device provides electrical current that is optically modulated by said incident light.
Regarding claim 2, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, wherein said photoconductive material comprises a wide band-gap semiconductor [see at least paras. 0012, 0016, 0043, 0058].
Regarding claim 3, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, wherein said photoconductive material comprises a band-gap of from 3.0 eV to 3.5 eV [in reference of paras. 0003, 0023, claim 6, Sampayan (US 2019/0355561)].
Regarding claim 6, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, wherein said photoconductive material comprises p-type semiconductor [see at least paras. 0035, 0040, 0045, 0056].
Regarding claim 7, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, wherein said photoconductive material comprises SiC [see at least paras. 0016, 0043, 0058].
Regarding claim 8, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, wherein said photoconductive material comprises diamond [para. 0012; to improve the performance for lower turn-on voltages, higher emission current densities, lower noise, and improved stability].
Regarding claim 9, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, wherein said optically gated field emission photocathode comprises a pillar, tip, or apexes [see at least figs, 1-6] formed of said photoconductive material.
Regarding claim 10, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claims 1, wherein said photoconductive material comprises nanostructure [see at least para. 0043] configured to emit electrons.
Regarding claim 11, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, wherein said photoconductive material has a surface electron affinity sufficiently low that photocarriers that are emitted from the photocathode upon illumination with said light.
Regarding claim 12, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, further comprising a first substrate [e.g. 121], said photoconductive material disposed on said first substrate.
Regarding claim 13, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 12, wherein said first substrate comprises a semiconductor substrate [see at least paras. 0016, 0035-0036, 0040-0041, 0047, 0056].
Regarding claim 19, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of claim 1, wherein said anode has an opening therein for said light to pass or comprises a transparent conductor [e.g. aperture 134].
Regarding claim 20, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of claim 1, further comprising the external light source [e.g. 140B] configured to illuminate said photocathode and cause photocarriers to be generated in said photoconductive material.
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 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Berrios et al. (US 2021/0098222) in view of Koehler et al. (US 2024/0097064).
Regarding claim 4, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, except wherein said photoconductive material comprises an ultra-wide band-gap semiconductor. However, Koehler discloses the advantage of the ultra-wide band-gap semiconductor material [para. 0093-0094, similar to the description in the provisional application]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Garcia in accordance with the teaching of Koehler regarding ultra-wide band-gap semiconductor materials in order to provide high critical electric field strength, high carrier mobility, and high saturation velocity [paras. 0094].
Claims 5 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Berrios et al. (US 2021/0098222) in view of Chen et al. (US 2012/0001543).
Regarding claim 5, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, except wherein said photoconductive material comprises a band-gap of from 3.5 eV to 8.0 eV [see at least para. 0045]. However, Chen discloses a band-gap of from 3.5 eV to 8.0 eV [see at least para. 0045]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Garcia in accordance with the teaching of Chen regarding a band-gap in order to provide a band-gap of from 3.5 eV to 8.0 eV [paras. 0045].
Regarding claim 16, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of claim l, except further comprising a second substrate, said second substrate being optically transmissive or transparent to said light, said anode disposed on said second substrate. However, Chen discloses a second substrate [e.g. 308/704/804, silicon oxide], said second substrate being optically transmissive or transparent to said light [in reference of para. 0050 of US 2022/0128661 by Wang: silicon dioxide is sufficiently transparent as to light], said anode disposed on said second substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Garcia in accordance with the teaching of Chen regarding a dielectric material in order to accelerate/slow down electrons [paras. 0043, 0046-0047]
Regarding claim 17, the combination discussed above discloses the vacuum electronic device of claim 16, wherein said second substrate comprises a glass substrate [e.g. silicon dioxide Chen].
Regarding claim 18, the combination discussed above discloses the vacuum electronic device of any of claim 16, wherein said first [e.g. 121 Garcia] and second substrates [e.g. 802/702 Chen] are separated by spacers.
Claims 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Berrios et al. (US 2021/0098222) in view of Kapadia et al. (US 2023/0215678).
Regarding claim 14, Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 13, wherein said semiconductor substrate comprises a doped semiconductor substrate. Garcia does not discloses said first substrate further comprising a conductive layer or contact on a side of said first substrate opposite said photocathode. However, Kapadia discloses semiconductor substrate comprises a doped semiconductor substrate [e.g. p_inGaAs/p-InP or SiO2/P-Si], said first substrate further comprising a conductive layer or contact [e.g. contact fig. 2/4] on a side of said first substrate [e.g. the lower side of substrate] opposite said photocathode configured to be electrically connected to a source of voltage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Garcia in accordance with the teaching of Kapadia regarding a contact in order to utilize well-known contact for applying a voltage source [para. 0012].
Regarding claim 15, the combination discussed above discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 14, wherein said semiconductor substrate comprises doped silicon [see at least paras. 0020, 0052-0053 Kapadia, paras. 0015, 0016, 0019, 0035-0036, 0040-0041, 0047, 0056Garcia].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
‘Claim 1, however, has been amended to recite an optically gated field emission photocathode comprising photoconductive material comprising a wide band-gap semiconductor or an ultrawide band-gap semiconductor. Claim 1 (emphasis added). The Office Action has not established that Garcia Berrios discloses an optically gated field emission photocathode comprising photoconductive material comprising a wide band-gap semiconductor or an ultrawide band-gap semiconductor.
Accordingly, Claim 1 is not anticipated by Garcia Berrios. Claim 19 depends from Claim 1 and is patentable over Garcia Berrios for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to amended Claim 1. Applicant therefore respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejection of Claims 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen.’
However, Garcia discloses an optically gated field emission photocathode [e.g. 120/121] comprising photoconductive material comprising a wide band-gap semiconductor or an ultrawide band-gap semiconductor [e.g. silicon carbide, see at least paras. 0016, 0043, 0058].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7207. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Flexible 8:00-16:30.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/PATRICK C CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights