Contract analysis

1. Purpose and Urgency of This Letter I am writing to provide formal urgent notice regarding an imminent and absolute statutory deadline for U.S. Patent Application No. 17/672,204 (the "A1 Application"), titled "Multi-Channel Silicon-Photonic Mach-Zehnder Modulator with Segmented Traveling-Wave Electrode Architecture." The deadline to respond to the pending non-final Office Action in the A1 Application is March 9, 20

2. Procedural History of the Deadline To provide context for how the current deadline situation arose, the following is a summary of the relevant procedural history. The non-final Office Action in the A1 Application was mailed by the USPTO during the summer of 2023, prior to the imposition of the budget freeze. Under the applicable provisions of the Patent Act and implementing regulations — specifically 35 U.S.C. § 1

3. Current Status of the Draft Response Prior to the imposition of the Project Lighthouse budget freeze in August 2023, C&H had been actively preparing a draft response to the non-final Office Action in the A1 Application. This draft response includes proposed claim amendments and a partial remarks section addressing the examiner's rejections. The draft was prepared primarily by me through approximately August 2023,

1. Completion of the remarks section, including detailed arguments distinguishing the cited references and addressing each of the examiner's specific rejections;

2. Conduct of an updated prior art analysis to ensure that no additional relevant references have issued or published since August 2023 that could affect the prosecution strategy;

3. Review and finalization of the proposed claim amendments in light of the updated prior art landscape;

4. Partner review by Catherine Bloom;

5. Preparation of a final draft for client review and approval; and

6. Filing of the response with the USPTO. Based on my assessment of the work remaining, I estimate that completing the response will require approximately 40 to 55 attorney hours, translating to approximately $22,000 to $30,000 in attorney fees at the discounted rates set forth in the current engagement letter. In addition, potential USPTO fees may be incurred — for example, if a Request for Continued Examination ("R

4. Consequences of Missing the March 9, 2025 Deadline The consequences of failing to file a timely response by the March 9, 2025 deadline would be severe, multifaceted, and in certain respects irreversible. I outline the principal areas of concern below. 4.1 Abandonment of the Foundational Application If no response to the pending non-final Office Action is filed by March 9, 2025, Application No. 17/672,204 will be d

5. Required Actions and Timeline In light of the foregoing, C&H respectfully but strongly urges OWS to authorize the immediate resumption of prosecution work on Application No. 17/672,204. Given the absolute nature of the March 9, 2025 deadline and the volume of work required to finalize and file a proper response to the non-final Office Action, C&H recommends that authorization and budget approval be obtained no lat

1. Completion and finalization of the draft Office Action response, including completion of the remarks section, updated prior art analysis, and revision of proposed claim amendments — estimated duration: 4 to 6 weeks of attorney work time;

2. Partner review by Catherine Bloom (Responsible Partner) — estimated duration: 1 to 2 weeks;

3. Client review and approval by Sandra and, as appropriate, by OWS's technical team — estimated duration: 1 to 2 weeks; and

4. Filing with the USPTO well in advance of the March 9, 2025 absolute deadline, with a target filing date of no later than February 28, 2025, to provide a reasonable buffer against unforeseen complications. As noted above, the estimated cost for this work is $22,000 to $30,000 in attorney fees plus potential USPTO fees. I recognize that this estimate is substantially in excess of the $25,000 per quarter cap imposed

6. Additional Upcoming Deadlines While the A1 Application deadline is the most immediately critical matter requiring OWS's attention, I want to take this opportunity to flag several additional deadlines that are approaching on the OWS patent prosecution docket: • April 21, 2025 — B1 (U.S. Application No. 17/814,057): Deadline to respond to the pending Restriction Requirement. A four-month extension of time was filed

7. Ethical Obligation Notice I wish to note that C&H has a continuing professional obligation under the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the USPTO rules of practice — including, without limitation, the duties set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 11.103 (diligence) and California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 — to advise OWS of impending deadlines that could result in the loss of patent rights. This obligation pers

8. Request for Response I respectfully request that Sandra acknowledge receipt of this letter at your earliest convenience — by reply email or telephone is acceptable. I further request a substantive response regarding OWS's intended course of action with respect to the A1 Application by no later than December 20, 2024. This date is necessary to allow C&H adequate time to plan and staff the prosecution work, includin