DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
A restriction requirement was mailed on 12/3/25.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (device claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 2/3/26 was acknowledged in a previous office action. The requirement was still deemed proper and therefore made FINAL on 3/26/26. Claims 11-20 are still withdrawn.
This application is almost in condition for allowance, with one exception for the presence of claims 11-20 directed to an invention non-elected with traverse. Applicant should cancel the noted claims or take other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites the limitation wherein a photon energy of the illumination is greater than an activation energy of the donor material”, which fails to further limit claim 1 because claim 1 has been amended to require “wherein the light source emits illumination at a wavelength producing photon energies between an ionization energy of the donor material and the bandgap of diamond.” Because claim 1 requires a finite range on the energies of the photons in the illuminating light source (between the ionization energy of the donor material and the bandgap of diamond), while claim 7 only requires an lower limit on the energy, and because photon energy is inversely proportional to wavelength, claim 7 fails to further limit claim 1 because it is broader than the requirements of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein a wavelength of the illumination is smaller than a threshold value that is determined based on characteristics of the donor material”, which fails to further limit claim 1 because claim 1 has been amended to require “wherein the light source emits illumination at a wavelength producing photon energies between an ionization energy of the donor material and the bandgap of diamond.” Because claim 1 requires a finite range on the wavelengths of the photons in the illuminating light source, whereas claim 8 only requires a maximum wavelength, claim 8 fails to further limit claim 1 because it is broader than the requirements of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not explicitly teach, or reasonably suggest as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, an invention having all of the limitations of claim 1, including:
a P-type diamond layer doped with an acceptor material;
an N-type diamond region doped with a donor material,
wherein the N-type diamond region is in contact with the P-type diamond layer;
a light blocking layer comprising one or more apertures configured to allow illumination from a light source to pass through to reach the N-type diamond region, adjacent to a side where the source contact is present, wherein the light blocking layer is configured to block illumination from reaching areas of the N-type diamond region adjacent to a side where the drain contact is present, and wherein the light source emits illumination at a wavelength producing photon energies between an ionization energy of the donor material and the bandgap of diamond;
wherein the N-type diamond region, upon receiving the illumination and application of a first bias voltage, is configured to turn off a conduction current, wherein the off state is maintained after the illumination is ceased.
The other allowed claims each depend from one of these claims, and each is allowable for the same reasons as the claim from which it depends.
In light of the Affidavit filed on 7/27/26, the amendments to the specification are entered and the previous rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn. The previous combination of prior art does not teach the limitations as amended.
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 with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Conclusion / Finality
Applicant's amendment changed the scope of the claims and 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights