Contract analysis

I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS Applicant respectfully submits this Response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed in the above-identified application (the "Office Action"). The mailing date of the Office Action is to be confirmed from the prosecution file maintained by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Applicant Optiwave Semiconductor Corp. respectfully requests that the Examiner consider the amendment

II. STATUS OF THE CLAIMS PRIOR TO AMENDMENT The claims of U.S. Application No. 17/672,204 were originally filed on January 9, 2023, as part of the non-provisional application. As filed, the application contained a total of twenty-four (24) claims, numbered Claims 1 through 24, comprising three (3) independent claims and twenty-one (21) dependent claims. The independent claims are directed to the following subject mat

III. SUMMARY OF THE OFFICE ACTION REJECTIONS The Office Action sets forth rejections of certain claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Applicant summarizes these rejections below for the convenience of the Examiner and to provide context for the amendments and arguments presented in Sections IV and V of this Response. A. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) — Anticipation The Office Action rejected Claims 1, 2, 3,

IV. AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS Applicant hereby amends the claims as set forth below. Additions to the claim language are indicated by underlining; deletions are indicated by strikethrough. The claims not listed below remain as previously presented. A. Amended Independent Claim 1 Claim 1 (Currently Amended): A multi-channel silicon-photonic Mach-Zehnder modulator apparatus, comprising: (a) a silicon-on-insulator substr

V. REMARKS IN SUPPORT OF PATENTABILITY A. Overview of Amendments and Argument Strategy The amendments set forth in Section IV above add the tapered impedance-matching feature as a structural limitation to each of the three independent claims (Claims 1, 12, and 18). This feature — specifying that each electrode segment comprises a tapered impedance-matching region configured to provide a graduated impedance transition

VI. CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that all pending claims as amended are in condition for allowance. Applicant requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw all rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action, including the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. If the Examiner believes that any issue remains unresolved after consideration of t

VII. SIGNATURE BLOCK [DRAFT — Signature placeholder. Not yet executed. This Response is to be signed by Catherine Bloom (Reg. No. 58,412), responsible partner, upon completion of partner review. DO NOT FILE without partner signature.] Respectfully submitted, CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP By: ________ Catherine Bloom (Reg. No. 58,412) Partner, intellectual Property Group Christy Bauer (Reg. No. 74,329) Lead Associate, int

VIII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / CERTIFICATE OF MAILING CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC FILING I hereby certify that this Response to Non-Final Office Action, together with all accompanying papers and amendments, is being filed electronically via the USPTO Patent Center electronic filing system on the date indicated below, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.6(a)(4). By: ________ Name: ________ Registration No.: ________ Date:

1. Partner Review by Catherine Bloom — NOT YET CONDUCTED. Draft v0.3 of this Response has not been reviewed by the responsible partner, Catherine Bloom (Reg. No. 58,412). Partner review is required before this Response may be finalized or filed. Work on this matter was suspended effective August 11, 2023, due to the client budget freeze (see Item 9 below).

2. Client Review by Sandra Koh (OWS IP Manager) — NOT YET SENT. The draft Response has not been transmitted to the client for review. Sandra Koh, IP Manager at Optiwave Semiconductor Corp., is the designated client contact for prosecution matters. Client review and approval are required before filing. The draft should not be sent to the client until partner review is completed.

3. Technical Verification with Dr. Lena Strickland and Dr. Feng-Yi Chen Regarding Taper Geometry Parameters — PENDING. The specific taper geometry parameters (e.g., taper length, impedance gradient, taper profile) recited in the amended claims should be verified against the preferred embodiment parameters used in OWS's production devices. Dr. Strickland (lead inventor) and Dr. Chen (co-inventor and fabrication lead)

4. Cross-Check of Priority Support in Provisional Application No. 63/297,841 (Originally Drafted by Kessler & Morin LLP) — PENDING. The tapered impedance-matching limitation added by the amendments must be cross-checked against the disclosure of the provisional application to confirm that priority support exists. The provisional was drafted by Dr. Helen Kessler at Kessler & Morin LLP ("K&M") and filed January 10, 202

5. Secondary Considerations Evidence Gathering (Commercial Success Data) — PENDING. Evidence of commercial success of OWS's design-around products incorporating the tapered impedance-matching feature is needed to support the secondary considerations argument in Section V.C. Relevant data includes: (a) FY 2022 and FY 2023 revenue attributable to products incorporating the design-around architecture; (b) customer adopt

6. Individualized Arguments for Each Examiner-Cited Secondary Reference — NOT DRAFTED. Section V.D of the Response (Distinction of Additional Secondary References) is incomplete. Each secondary reference cited by the Examiner must be reviewed and distinguished individually. This task cannot be completed until the full Office Action has been reviewed and all cited references have been obtained and analyzed.

7. Decision on Whether to File RCE If Amendments Are Deemed to Change Scope. If the Examiner determines that the amendments to the independent claims change the scope of the claims such that a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) is required, the estimated cost is $2,000 in USPTO fees at the small entity rate, in addition to approximately 40–55 attorney hours for preparing the RCE and any supplemental response. At

8. Confirm Whether New Dependent Claims Should Be Added — Requires Discussion with Prosecution Strategy Team. As noted in Section IV.D, consideration should be given to adding 2–3 new dependent claims narrowing the taper geometry with specific parameters. This decision should be made in consultation with the prosecution strategy team (Catherine Bloom, Christy Bauer, and Peter Vassiliev) and with input from the invent

9. Budget Authorization — All Work Suspended as of August 11, 2023. All work on this matter has been suspended effective August 11, 2023, pursuant to the Project Lighthouse budget freeze imposed by Harborview Partners (OWS's majority equity investor). The quarterly IP spend has been capped at $25,000 per quarter, compared to a pre-freeze average of approximately $87,400 per quarter. The current matter (C&H Matter No.

10. Absolute Deadline — March 9, 2025. The absolute deadline to file this Response is March 9, 2025. No further extensions of time are available under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). A two-month extension of time was purchased on September 6, 2023, at a cost of $640.00 (small entity rate). If the Response is not filed by March 9, 2025, U.S. Application No. 17/672,204 will be ABANDONED. Abandonment would result in the irrevocab