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.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites “further comprising a light source configured to illuminate said photocathode and generate photocarriers in said photoconductive material”, which renders the claim indefinite. The light source does not generate photocarriers. It causes photocarriers to be generated in said photoconductive material.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2012/0001543).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a vacuum electronic device [e.g. fig. 3 ( and/or fig. 4/7/8/2, see the corresponding elements)] 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. 302/704/804] comprising photoconductive material; an anode [e.g. 304] comprising a conductive material; and a gap [e.g. 312] between said photocathode and said anode, wherein said gap comprises vacuum [see at least paras. 0027-0028, 0042-0043, 0045-0046], wherein said anode and photocathode are configured to receive a voltage [see at least paras. 0026, 0039, 0041] across the anode and photocathode, such that when said photocathode is illuminated with said light, electrons are emitted from said photocathode and travel through said gap.
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, wherein said photoconductive material comprises a band-gap of from 3.5 eV to 8.0 eV [see at least para. 0045].
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claims 1, wherein said photoconductive material comprises nanostructure [paras. 0025-0026] configured to emit electrons.
Regarding claim 11, Chen 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, Chen discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, further comprising a first substrate [e.g. 306/406/substrate], said photoconductive material disposed on said first substrate.
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 12, wherein said first substrate comprises a semiconductor substrate [see at least paras. 0029-0030].
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses the vacuum electronic device of claim l, further comprising 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.
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses the vacuum electronic device of claim 16, wherein said second substrate comprises a glass substrate [e.g. silicon dioxide].
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses the vacuum electronic device of any of claim 16, wherein said first [e.g. 306/406] and second substrates [e.g. 802/702] are separated by spacers.
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. silicon dioxide 702/802, also see rejection of claim 16; silicon dioxide is sufficiently transparent as to light].
Claim(s) 1 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. 120B] comprising photoconductive material; 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, such that when said photocathode is illuminated with said light, electrons are emitted from said photocathode and travel through said gap.
Regarding claim 19, Chen 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 (as best understood), Garcia discloses the vacuum electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a light source [e.g. 140B] configured to illuminate said photocathode and generate photocarriers 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.
Claims 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0001543) in view of Sampayan (US 2019/0355561).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, except wherein said photoconductive material comprises a wide band-gap semiconductor. However, Sampayan discloses photoconductive material comprises a wide band-gap semiconductor [para. 0003, claim 6]. 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 Chen in accordance with the teaching of Sampayan regarding a wide bandgap material in order to provide the well-known SiC as photoconductive material.
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, except wherein said photoconductive material comprises a band-gap of from 3.0 eV to 3.5 eV. However, Sampayan discloses photoconductive material comprises a band-gap of from 3.0 eV to 3.5 eV [paras. 0003, 0023, claim 6]. 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 Chen in accordance with the teaching of Sampayan regarding a wide bandgap material in order to provide the well-known SiC as photoconductive material [paras. 0003, 0023, claim 6].
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0001543) in view of Koehler et al. (US 2024/0097064).
Regarding claim 4, Chen 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 Chen 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].
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0001543) in view of Schwede et al. (US 2023/0093228).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, wherein said photoconductive material comprises p-type semiconductor. Chen does not disclose p-type semiconductor. However, Schwede discloses a photoconductive material comprises p-type semiconductor [paras. 0015-0016]. 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 Chen in accordance with the teaching of Schwede regarding p-type semiconductor in order to utilize a well-known p-type semiconductor in the vacuum electronic device.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0001543) in view of Chuang et al. (US 2020/0118783).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, except wherein said photoconductive material comprises SiC. However, Chuang discloses photoconductive material comprises SiC [see at least abstract, paras. 0015, 0017].
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 Chen in accordance with the teaching of Chuang regarding SiC in order to provide the well-known SiC as photoconductive material.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0001543) in view of Garcia Berrios et al. (US 2021/0098222).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, except wherein said photoconductive material comprises diamond. However, Garcia Berrios discloses photoconductive material comprises diamond [para. 0012]. 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 Chen in accordance with the teaching of Garcia Berrios regarding surface treatments in order to improve the performance for lower turn-on voltages, higher emission current densities, lower noise, and improved stability [para. 0012].
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0001543) in view of Chen et al. (US 2012/0001543).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1, wherein said optically gated field emission photocathode comprises a pillar, tip, or apexe formed of said photoconductive material. Fig. 3/4/7/2 does not disclose a plurality of pillars, tips, or apexes. However, fig. 5B discloses a plurality of pillars, tips, or apexes [see paras. 0037-0038]. 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 Chen in accordance with the teaching of Chen regarding emission tips in order to utilize multiple tips to emit electrons to a center anode [para. 0038].
Claims 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0001543) in view of Kapadia et al. (US 2023/0215678).
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses the vacuum electronic device of Claim 13, wherein said semiconductor substrate comprises a doped semiconductor substrate, said first substrate further comprising a conductive laser or contact [see at least 406 fig. 4] on a side of said first substrate opposite said photocathode [substrate is on the bottom, the cathode is on the top] configured to be electrically connected to a source of voltage. Chen does not disclose a doped semiconductor substrate. However, it’s well-known to utilize a doped semiconductor substrate. For example, Kapadia discloses a doped semiconductor substrate [see at least paras. 00045, 0048, 0052]. In addition, Kapadia discloses a first substrate further comprising a conductive laser or contact on a side of said first substrate opposite said photocathode [substrate is on the bottom, the cathode is on the top] 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 Chen in accordance with the teaching of Kapadia regarding a substrate in order to utilize a well-known doped substrate.
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, 306/406 fig. 3/4 of Chen, para. 0033].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
‘Chen, however, is a different type of device than the vacuum electronic device of Claim 1. Claim 1, for example, recites a vacuum electronic device configured to provide electrical current configured to be optically modulated by incident light. In contrast, Chen, which is titled "Room Temperature Silicon-Compatible LED/Laser with Electrically Pumped Field Emission Device", states that "FIG. 3 illustrates a schematic view of a silicon compatible light source 300..." Chen, paragraph [0029]. The devices are opposites. Claim 1 recited a device that outputs electrons when illuminated with light. Chen discloses a light source that outputs photons when electrically pumped.
Similarly, Claim 1 recites "an optically gated field emission photocathode". The Office Action does not explain where Chen shows any component that is "optically gated".’
However, the terminology "an optically gated field emission photocathode" is only used by applicant. In addition, Chen discloses to generate light source by a silicon cathode [302] that emits electrons via field emission. Therefore, Chen discloses an optically gated field emission photocathode.
Also, the phrase “a vacuum electronic device configured to provide electrical current configured to be optically modulated by incident light” is recited as a preamble. The recitation has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied that effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). In addition, the vacuum electronic device disclosed by Chen is capable of providing electrical current configured to be optically modulated by incident light.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In addition, in order to reject new claim 20, a new reference, Garcia Berrios et al. (US 2021/0098222), is applied to also reject claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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 9:00-5:30.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at 571-272-1988. 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 2842
Prosecution Insights