DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on September 17, 2026. In accordance with this amendment, claims 1-6, 11, 12, and 14-18 have been amended, claim 20 has been formally canceled, while new claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-19 and 21 remain pending, with claim 1 as the sole independent claim.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on July 2, 2026, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahrous et al. NPL “A High-Speed Electro-Optic Modulator with Optimized Electrode Positions.”
Mahrous NPL teaches (ABS; Entire Document, notably pgs. 530-532; Fig. 1) an optical modulator (note Fig. 1; Section II – Modulator Structure and Performance Metrics) comprising: an optical waveguide (center of Fig. 1, “Silicon Core”) made of a material having an electro-optic effect (in current circumstance of E/O modulation, the Si waveguide has electro-optic effect(s)); a control electrode (two electrodes shown in Fig. 1) to control light passing through the optical waveguide; and a low dielectric constant layer (Silica) with a dielectric constant lower than a dielectric constant of the optical waveguide (SiO2 has a lower dielectric than Silicon; approximately 4 for SiO2 in comparison to about 11.7 for Si); wherein the control electrode includes a first electrode and a second electrode that generate a potential difference with each other (lower left electrode 1 and upper right electrode 2; see Fig. 1 and note the 2nd paragraph starting “As shown in Fig. 1…”); and in a cross-sectional view in a direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to an extending direction of the optical waveguide: the first electrode is on a first widthwise side of the optical waveguide in a width direction and on the a first thicknesswise side of the optical waveguide in a thickness direction; the second electrode is on a second widthwise side of the optical waveguide in the width direction and on a second thicknesswise side of the optical waveguide in the thickness direction; the low dielectric constant layer is interposed between the first electrode and the optical waveguide (at least portions of the silica are in between the 1st electrode and the central waveguide Si core, see Fig. 1); and a portion of the first electrode adjacent to the optical waveguide is in the low dielectric constant layer (electrode(s) formed “in” the silica); the first electrode and the second electrode do not overlap the waveguide in the thickness direction; and the first electrode and the second electrode do not overlap the waveguide in the width direction (see Fig. 1, the electrodes 1 and 2 do not overlap in either the “W” or “H” directions defined by the exterior portions of the silica in comparison to the silicon), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations of sole pending independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)
prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. U.S. Patent No. 12,461,400 B2 (this document is effectively filed at least as early as February 24, 2022, under WO ‘670), and further in view of Mahrous et al. NPL “A High-Speed Electro-Optic Modulator…”.
Regarding sole pending independent claim 1, Zhu et al. U.S. Patent No. 12,461,400 B2 teaches (ABS; Figs. 4A, 4B, 7A-7C; corresponding text, in particular columns 5-10; Claims) an optical modulator (Figs. 4B and 7C embodiments are the closest for the claims at issues) comprising: an optical waveguide made of a material having an electro-optic effect (waveguide shown in Fig. 4B, not labeled; AlN or SCAlN or LiNbO3 waveguide material); a control electrode to control light passing through the optical waveguide; and a low dielectric constant layer (SiO2) with a dielectric constant lower than a dielectric constant of the optical waveguide; wherein the control electrode includes a first electrode (“upper electrode” and “metal”, Fig. 4B) and a second electrode (“bottom electrode” with additional “metal” and contact, Fig. 4B) that generate a potential difference with each other; and in a cross-sectional view in a direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to an extending direction of the optical waveguide: the first electrode is on a first side of the optical waveguide in a width direction and on the first side of the optical waveguide in a thickness direction (top and or right in Fig. 4B); the second electrode is on a second side of the optical waveguide in the width direction and on the second side of the optical waveguide in the thickness direction (bottom and or left in Fig. 4B); the low dielectric constant layer is interposed between the first electrode and the optical waveguide; and a portion of the first electrode adjacent to the optical waveguide is in the low dielectric constant layer (at least part(s) of the electrode contacts are formed in the low dielectric constant layer of the SiO2).
Regarding the amendment as filed on September 17, 2026, there is no express and exact teaching within the close prior art of Zhu US ‘400 in that “the first and the second electrodes do not overlap with the waveguide in either the thickness direction or the width direction.”
However, substantially similar prior art to Mahrous NPL teaches a close configuration to such an amendment, in which “first and second electrodes do not overlap with the waveguide in either the thickness direction or the width direction.” The Mahrous NPL configuration is used for optimizing electrode positioning for an electro-optic modulator, in that the chosen symmetrical configuration controls the central waveguide core but also does not overlap in either of at least two dimensioned directions in the device.
Mahrous NPL teaches (ABS; Entire Document, notably pgs. 530-532; Fig. 1) an optical modulator (note Fig. 1; Section II – Modulator Structure and Performance Metrics) comprising: an optical waveguide (center of Fig. 1, “Silicon Core”) made of a material having an electro-optic effect (in current circumstance of E/O modulation, the Si waveguide has electro-optic effect(s)); a control electrode (two electrodes shown in Fig. 1) to control light passing through the optical waveguide; and a low dielectric constant layer (Silica) with a dielectric constant lower than a dielectric constant of the optical waveguide (SiO2 has a lower dielectric than Silicon; approximately 4 for SiO2 in comparison to about 11.7 for Si); wherein the control electrode includes a first electrode and a second electrode that generate a potential difference with each other (lower left electrode 1 and upper right electrode 2; see Fig. 1 and note the 2nd paragraph starting “As shown in Fig. 1…”); and in a cross-sectional view in a direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to an extending direction of the optical waveguide: the first electrode is on a first widthwise side of the optical waveguide in a width direction and on the a first thicknesswise side of the optical waveguide in a thickness direction; the second electrode is on a second widthwise side of the optical waveguide in the width direction and on a second thicknesswise side of the optical waveguide in the thickness direction; the low dielectric constant layer is interposed between the first electrode and the optical waveguide (at least portions of the silica are in between the 1st electrode and the central waveguide Si core, see Fig. 1); and a portion of the first electrode adjacent to the optical waveguide is in the low dielectric constant layer (electrode(s) formed “in” the silica); the first electrode and the second electrode do not overlap the waveguide in the thickness direction; and the first electrode and the second electrode do not overlap the waveguide in the width direction (see Fig. 1, the electrodes 1 and 2 do not overlap in either the “W” or “H” directions defined by the exterior portions of the silica in comparison to the silicon).
Since Zhu and Mahrous NPL are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Mahrous NPL would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Zhu.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Mahrous NPL, to have a disclosed optimized electrode positioning within a semiconductor based modulator, in that the 1st and 2nd control electrodes do not overlap each other either in a thickness direction or a width direction, in comparison to a waveguide core, into the base design of the optical modulator of Zhu US ‘400, to allow for an improvement in positioning of the electrodes but also to required less metal for fabrication because the electrodes can be smaller in size. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having non-overlapping electrodes in comparison to a waveguide / core. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 1 is found obvious over Zhu US ‘400 and further in view of Mahrous NPL.
Regarding dependent claim 2, at least a “corner portion” of the upper electrode is on an optical waveguide side in Zhu, which meets all structure.
Regarding claim 3, the first electrode in Zhu Figs. 4B and/or 7C is on the first edge side as labeled.
Regarding claim 5, the first electrode of Zhu is substantially rectangularly shaped and is on the side opposite of the waveguide.
Regarding claim 6, in a thickness direction frame of reference, the 1st electrode of Zhu is only on one (top) side while the 2nd electrode is only on one (bottom) side of the WG.
Regarding claim 8, the Zhu waveguide can be lithium niobate (column 6, line 59-63).
Regarding claim 9, the 1st and 2nd electrode of Zhu can both be considered as extending in two dimensions (thickness and width) in a reasonable frame of reference, which meets all structure of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, a substrate exists (“Substrate Si”, Fig. 4B), also the SiO2 itself could function as a substrate, thus structure is met.
Regarding claim 19, at least Figure 9 of Zhu shows an MZI configuration as an example embodiment of the optical modulator of Figs. 4B and 7C.
Regarding further dependent claims 4, 7, 11-16, and 21 (while claims 17-18 depend from claim 11), there is no express and exact recitation of a single embodiment that employs all of such features as found in the combination of Zhu/Mahrous, in particular for the semi-elliptical core shape (claim 4), an auxiliary low dielectric layer (claim 7), the substrate and waveguide comprising the same material and being ridge shaped (claim 11), the use of two modulators connected together using the base features of claim 1, formed with features complementary and integrated into larger design(s) (as in claims 12-16), or having a groove in the low dielectric with the 1st electrode in the groove (claim 21). However, at the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as those in the secondary (dependent and removed claim limitations) as outlined above, because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Zhu/Mahrous to perform equally well with such features as the opto-electrical (modulation) dependencies (noted features of the optical modulated as not expressly disclosed by one embodiment of Zhu/Mahrous) because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve optical modulation and electrode control for the specifics of modulating the input optical signal(s). It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with an optical modulator unit such as in Zhu/Mahrous. Further, the base structure of the sole independent claim 1 is clearly and fully anticipated by Mahrous NPL and made obvious by a number of other prior art references (such as Zhu/Mahrous herein), as listed prior to, heretofore, and following this section. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) Zhu/Mahrous to obtain the invention as specified in claims 4, 7, 11-16, and 21. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 17 (which depends on claim 11), the waveguide of Zhu is located in an “upper part” of the substrate (noting the frame-of-reference, see Fig. 4B and 7C), as the waveguide can be located in an integrated device shown as in Zhu or turned upside-down. The waveguide is not perfectly in the middle in either Fig. 4B or 7C.
Regarding claim 18, at least titanium diffusion is disclosed (Zhu Fig. 2 column). Therefore, claims 17-18 are also obvious over Zhu/Mahrous. KSR.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-111238 A (to Nippon), and further in view of Mahrous et al. NPL “A High-Speed Electro-Optic Modulator…”.
Regarding sole pending independent claim 1, JP 2017-111238 A teaches (ABS; Fig. 9; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0034] – [0064]; Claims) an optical modulator (Fig. 9) comprising: an optical waveguide made of a material having an electro-optic effect (waveguide as 416 shown in Fig. 9; also waveguide(s) 203 / 204 can comprise interferometric design; the waveguide can be electro-optic based on control electrodes); a control electrode to control light passing through the optical waveguide (411 / 412; signal 407 / 408 and ground 420; alsophase adjustment electrodes 211 / 212; also signal 207 / 208 and ground 209 / 210); and a low dielectric constant layer (418) with a dielectric constant lower than a dielectric constant of the optical waveguide; wherein the control electrode includes a first electrode and a second electrode (Fig. 9; noted control electrode features above) that generate a potential difference with each other (potential difference formed between electrodes as in Fig. 9); and in a cross-sectional view in a direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to an extending direction of the optical waveguide: the first electrode is on a first side of the optical waveguide in a width direction and on the first side of the optical waveguide in a thickness direction (top and or right in Fig. 9); the second electrode is on a second side of the optical waveguide in the width direction and on the second side of the optical waveguide in the thickness direction (bottom and or left in Fig. 9); the low dielectric constant layer 218 (InP; BCB; polyamide of an organic material; etc.) is interposed between the first electrode and the optical waveguide; and a portion of the first electrode adjacent to the optical waveguide is in the low dielectric constant layer (at least part(s) of the electrode contacts are formed and embedded in the low dielectric constant layer 418).
Regarding the amendment as filed on September 17, 2026, there is no express and exact teaching within the close prior art of JP ‘238 in that “the first and the second electrodes do not overlap with the waveguide in either the thickness direction or the width direction.”
However, substantially similar prior art to Mahrous NPL teaches a close configuration to such an amendment, in which “first and second electrodes do not overlap with the waveguide in either the thickness direction or the width direction.” The Mahrous NPL configuration is used for optimizing electrode positioning for an electro-optic modulator, in that the chosen symmetrical configuration controls the central waveguide core but also does not overlap in either of at least two dimensioned directions in the device.
Mahrous NPL teaches (ABS; Entire Document, notably pgs. 530-532; Fig. 1) an optical modulator (note Fig. 1; Section II – Modulator Structure and Performance Metrics) comprising: an optical waveguide (center of Fig. 1, “Silicon Core”) made of a material having an electro-optic effect (in current circumstance of E/O modulation, the Si waveguide has electro-optic effect(s)); a control electrode (two electrodes shown in Fig. 1) to control light passing through the optical waveguide; and a low dielectric constant layer (Silica) with a dielectric constant lower than a dielectric constant of the optical waveguide (SiO2 has a lower dielectric than Silicon; approximately 4 for SiO2 in comparison to about 11.7 for Si); wherein the control electrode includes a first electrode and a second electrode that generate a potential difference with each other (lower left electrode 1 and upper right electrode 2; see Fig. 1 and note the 2nd paragraph starting “As shown in Fig. 1…”); and in a cross-sectional view in a direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to an extending direction of the optical waveguide: the first electrode is on a first widthwise side of the optical waveguide in a width direction and on the a first thicknesswise side of the optical waveguide in a thickness direction; the second electrode is on a second widthwise side of the optical waveguide in the width direction and on a second thicknesswise side of the optical waveguide in the thickness direction; the low dielectric constant layer is interposed between the first electrode and the optical waveguide (at least portions of the silica are in between the 1st electrode and the central waveguide Si core, see Fig. 1); and a portion of the first electrode adjacent to the optical waveguide is in the low dielectric constant layer (electrode(s) formed “in” the silica); the first electrode and the second electrode do not overlap the waveguide in the thickness direction; and the first electrode and the second electrode do not overlap the waveguide in the width direction (see Fig. 1, the electrodes 1 and 2 do not overlap in either the “W” or “H” directions defined by the exterior portions of the silica in comparison to the silicon).
Since JP ‘238 (Nippon) and Mahrous NPL are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Mahrous NPL would have been recognized in the pertinent art of JP ‘238.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Mahrous NPL, to have a disclosed optimized electrode positioning within a semiconductor based modulator, in that the 1st and 2nd control electrodes do not overlap each other either in a thickness direction or a width direction, in comparison to a waveguide core, into the base design of the optical modulator of JP ‘238, to allow for an improvement in positioning of the electrodes but also to required less metal for fabrication because the electrodes can be smaller in size. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having non-overlapping electrodes in comparison to a waveguide / core. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 1 is found obvious over JP ‘238 and further in view of Mahrous NPL.
Further, the Examiner fully incorporates, and agrees with, the logic and rationale found in the PCT Search Report and Written Opinion from corresponding PCT / JP 2022 / 043689. See Box No. V section (1) for JP ‘238.
Regarding further dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, and 10, see Fig. 9 in particular section (b) of JP ‘238 for the structural features of arranged locations of the control electrodes as outlined in claim 1 above, based on the cross-sectional and frames of reference, and as the materials chosen. Therefore, such features would have been obvious over the combination of JP ‘238 and Mahrous NPL further upon claim 1. KSR.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020-034610 A (which also corresponds to Ogawa et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,921,517 B2), and further in view of Mahrous et al. NPL “A High-Speed Electro-Optic Modulator…”.
Regarding sole pending independent claim 1, JP 2020-034610 A teaches (ABS; Figs. 11, 14-16; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0024] – [0108]; Claims) an optical modulator (Figs. 11, 14, 15, 16 as example embodiments) comprising: an optical waveguide made of a material having an electro-optic effect (slot waveguide has a core 6, with low refractive index layer 14; and also with thin film high refractive index layer(s) 10 / 12 on either side; the waveguide can be electro-optic based on control electrodes; core is modulated by electrode(s)); a control electrode to control light passing through the optical waveguide (electrodes as 28 / 30); and a low dielectric constant layer (claddings, at 32 / 34 / 36) with a dielectric constant lower than a dielectric constant of the optical waveguide; wherein the control electrode includes a first electrode and a second electrode (Figs. 11, 14-16; noted control electrode features above; contacts are metal at least at 28 / 30) that generate a potential difference with each other (potential difference formed between electrodes as in Figs. 11 and 14-16); and in a cross-sectional view in a direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to an extending direction of the optical waveguide: the first electrode is on a first side of the optical waveguide in a width direction and on the first side of the optical waveguide in a thickness direction (top and or right in example Figs.); the second electrode is on a second side of the optical waveguide in the width direction and on the second side of the optical waveguide in the thickness direction (bottom and or left in example Figs.); the low dielectric constant layer (embedded in cladding at 76 / 74, at least in Fig. 11) is interposed between the first electrode and the optical waveguide; and a portion of the first electrode adjacent to the optical waveguide is in the low dielectric constant layer (at least part(s) of the electrode contacts are formed and embedded in the low dielectric constant layer; claddings and gap, at 76 / 74).
Regarding the amendment as filed on September 17, 2026, there is no express and exact teaching within the close prior art of JP ‘610 in that “the first and the second electrodes do not overlap with the waveguide in either the thickness direction or the width direction.”
However, substantially similar prior art to Mahrous NPL teaches a close configuration to such an amendment, in which “first and second electrodes do not overlap with the waveguide in either the thickness direction or the width direction.” The Mahrous NPL configuration is used for optimizing electrode positioning for an electro-optic modulator, in that the chosen symmetrical configuration controls the central waveguide core but also does not overlap in either of at least two dimensioned directions in the device.
Mahrous NPL teaches (ABS; Entire Document, notably pgs. 530-532; Fig. 1) an optical modulator (note Fig. 1; Section II – Modulator Structure and Performance Metrics) comprising: an optical waveguide (center of Fig. 1, “Silicon Core”) made of a material having an electro-optic effect (in current circumstance of E/O modulation, the Si waveguide has electro-optic effect(s)); a control electrode (two electrodes shown in Fig. 1) to control light passing through the optical waveguide; and a low dielectric constant layer (Silica) with a dielectric constant lower than a dielectric constant of the optical waveguide (SiO2 has a lower dielectric than Silicon; approximately 4 for SiO2 in comparison to about 11.7 for Si); wherein the control electrode includes a first electrode and a second electrode that generate a potential difference with each other (lower left electrode 1 and upper right electrode 2; see Fig. 1 and note the 2nd paragraph starting “As shown in Fig. 1…”); and in a cross-sectional view in a direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to an extending direction of the optical waveguide: the first electrode is on a first widthwise side of the optical waveguide in a width direction and on the a first thicknesswise side of the optical waveguide in a thickness direction; the second electrode is on a second widthwise side of the optical waveguide in the width direction and on a second thicknesswise side of the optical waveguide in the thickness direction; the low dielectric constant layer is interposed between the first electrode and the optical waveguide (at least portions of the silica are in between the 1st electrode and the central waveguide Si core, see Fig. 1); and a portion of the first electrode adjacent to the optical waveguide is in the low dielectric constant layer (electrode(s) formed “in” the silica); the first electrode and the second electrode do not overlap the waveguide in the thickness direction; and the first electrode and the second electrode do not overlap the waveguide in the width direction (see Fig. 1, the electrodes 1 and 2 do not overlap in either the “W” or “H” directions defined by the exterior portions of the silica in comparison to the silicon).
Since JP ‘610 (Lumentum) and Mahrous NPL are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Mahrous NPL would have been recognized in the pertinent art of JP ‘610.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Mahrous NPL, to have a disclosed optimized electrode positioning within a semiconductor based modulator, in that the 1st and 2nd control electrodes do not overlap each other either in a thickness direction or a width direction, in comparison to a waveguide core, into the base design of the optical modulator of JP ‘610, to allow for an improvement in positioning of the electrodes but also to required less metal for fabrication because the electrodes can be smaller in size. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having non-overlapping electrodes in comparison to a waveguide / core. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 1 is found obvious over JP ‘610 and further in view of Mahrous NPL.
Further, the Examiner fully incorporates, and agrees with, the logic and rationale found in the PCT Search Report and Written Opinion from corresponding PCT / JP 2022 / 043689. See Box No. V section (3) for JP ‘610.
Regarding further dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10, see Figs. 11 and 14-16 in particular section from JP ‘610, for the structural features of arranged locations of the control electrodes as outlined in claim 1 above, based on the cross-sectional and frames of reference, and as the materials chosen. Therefore, such features would have been obvious over the combination of JP ‘610 and Mahrous NPL further dependent upon claim 1. KSR.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment with remarks (pages 7-12), filed on September 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under the Zhu US ‘400, JP ‘238, and JP ‘610 (see the non-final rejection as mailed on June 18, 2026), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, those rejections have been withdrawn, based on Applicant’s narrowing amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly discovered prior art to Mahrous NPL. Accordingly, and based on Applicant’s amendments to necessitate such further consideration, this office action is made FINAL.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment dated on September 17, 2026 has necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection, or shift(s) in rejection, as 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 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 September 28, 2026
