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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims, in the submission dated 12/15/2025, are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1, 10, and 21 are amended. Claim 23 is cancelled by the applicant. Claim 25 is added without the addition of new matter. Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-22, and 24-25 are pending.
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 1-3, 7, 9-13, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. US PGPub 2019/0204626 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 06/30/2023, hereinafter, “Watanabe”), Ludwig US Patent 8,164,832 B2 (of record, see IDS dated 06/09/2022, hereinafter, “Ludwig”), and New US PGPub 2017/0045909 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 06/16/2025, hereinafter, “New”).
Regarding amended independent claim 1, Watanabe discloses an optical computing chip, comprising:
a first concave mirror configured to output a first reflected optical signal based on a first optical signal (Figs. 1 and 2, optical system 10 includes lens 13 that may be a concave mirror, par. [0038], and lens 13 outputs light Lb received from light source 2, where light source 2 generates input light La to optical system 10, pars. [0036-37], where light La is the equivalent of a first optical signal, and light Lb is equivalent to a first reflected optical signal);
a light source (Fig. 1, light control apparatus 1A includes light source 2, pars. [0036-38]) configured to generate the first optical signal based on first data (light source 2 generates input light La to optical system 10, par. [0037]); and
a modulator (Figs. 1 and 2, optical system 10 has SLM 14, par. [0037], where SLM is an initialism for spatial light modulator, par. [0002]) wherein the modulator is configured to:
receive the first reflected optical signal (Fig. 2, SLM 14 receives light Lb from lens 13, par. [0039]);
obtain first spectrum plane distribution data based on the first reflected optical signal (light Lb is passed by lens 13, which as noted above may be a concave mirror, to SLM 14 to form an image on a modulation plane thereof, which as best understood by the Examiner, is the equivalent of obtaining first spectrum plane distribution data based on the first reflected optical signal, because SLM 14 is optically coupled to diffraction grating 12 via lens 13, and diffraction grating 12 spectrally disperses input light La into a plurality of wavelength components, and light Lb reflected by lens 13 is received by SLM 14 as a plurality of wavelength components, par. [0038]), wherein a transmittance of each of the modulators for the first reflected optical signal indicates a value in the first spectrum plane distribution data (SLM 14 must have a non-zero transmittance to function as intended, because light Lb received by SLM 14 must be transmitted through SLM 14 to reach lens 15, as shown in Fig. 2, and Watanabe discloses SLM 14 modulates a phase and an intensity of each incident wavelength component, and SLM 14 has modulation plane 17 with a plurality of modulation regions 17a, and each corresponding wavelength component after the dispersion is incident on each of the plurality of modulation regions 17a, par. [0040], therefore Watanabe discloses the equivalent result of a transmittance of modulator SLM 14 of light Lb that indicates a value in the wavelength spectrum of light transmitted by SLM 14);
receive a first modulation signal that is based on the first spectrum plane distribution data (modulation pattern calculation apparatus 20, shown in at least Fig. 1, is electrically coupled to SLM 14 and provides a control signal SC including the phase modulation pattern to the SLM 14 to bring output light Ld close to a desired waveform, par. [0045], and the control signal SC includes the calculated phase modulation pattern that is provided to SLM 14, par. [0050], therefore Watanabe teaches a modulation signal based on the first spectrum plane distribution data, that is to say, light Lb received by SLM 14, to output a desired waveform by appropriate modulation according to control signal SC received by SLM 14); and
modulate, based on the first modulation signal and using the modulators, the first spectrum plane distribution data by changing light intensity of the first reflected optical signal to obtain a modulated optical signal (Fig. 2, SLM 14 performs phase and intensity modulation on light Lb to generate output light Ld, par. [0039]).
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose a light source that is an array (Watanabe discloses light source 2 without specifying the light source is an array), nor does Watanabe disclose the light source 2 is located on a first objective focal plane of the first concave mirror (i.e., lens 13 of Watanabe), and Watanabe does not disclose a modulator that is an array (Watanabe discloses SLM 14 without specifying the modulator is an array), nor does Watanabe disclose the modulator is located on a first image focal plane of the first concave mirror comprising a plurality of modulators. Watanabe also does not disclose wherein the modulators are arranged along a straight line, and Watanabe does not disclose wherein each of the modulators receives and modulates a portion of the first reflected optical signal, and wherein each portion of the first reflected optical signal passes through and is modulated by only one of the modulators.
In a related field of invention, Ludwig discloses optics device 100, depicted in at least Fig. 3 thereof, with image source 101 (per col. 4, lines 66-67, the image source may be a projection screen, equivalent to a light source), lens system or other equivalent 102, and optical transfer function element 103 (equivalent to a modulator), and Ludwig teaches controllable optical phase shift elements in array form (col. 3, lines 44-48). Ludwig teaches the “lens-law relationship”, labeled as equation (1), refer to col. 5, lines 1-19 thereof, where Ludwig discloses the Fourier transforming properties of simple lenses and related optical elements as “well known”, and the use of a lens, lens systems, or other means (which Examiner understands to include concave mirrors) to take a first two-dimensional Fourier transform of an optical wavefront, thus creating at a particular spatial location a Fourier plane wherein the amplitude distribution of an original two-dimensional optical image becomes the two-dimensional Fourier transform of itself. In the arrangement of Ludwig Fig. 1 with a lit object serving as the source image 101, the Fourier optics case is obtained when a = b = f, where a is the distance between source 101 and lens (or other optical element) 102, b is the distance between lens element 102 and the Fourier plane 104, and f is the focal length. Furthermore, Ludwig teaches optical transfer function elements 103a and 103b (where, as noted above, element 103 is equivalent to a modulator) arranged along a straight line, as shown in Fig. 3 of Ludwig, and also teaches one or more controllable optical phase shift elements in array form (col. 3, lines 44-48 thereof).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Ludwig to the disclosure of Watanabe and placed light source 2 (which, as taught by Ludwig, may be an array of light emitting diodes, col. 8, lines 53-56) in the form of an array at the objective focal plane of lens 13 (which, as noted above, can be a concave mirror), and to have arranged elements of modulator SLM 14 as an array along a straight line at the image focal plane of lens 13, to allow for easy, inexpensive, and flexible signal processing of images (Ludwig, col. 5, line 23-33).
The prior art combination of Watanabe in view of Ludwig does not disclose wherein each of the modulators receives and modulates a portion of the first reflected optical signal, and wherein each portion of the first reflected optical signal passes through and is modulated by only one of the modulators.
In a related field of invention, New discloses an optical processing system (see at least Fig. 5 thereof), including one or more spatial light modulator arrays and multiple optical sources (pars. [0033], [0058], [0064] thereof). New further discloses how the 4f optical system, shown in Fig. 7 thereof, may be extended by adding further functions into the optical path by employing multiple high resolution pixel arrays, and multiple light beams from multiple optical sources may also be used and combined as required through the system, with the final detector arrays positioned at the output of the system (par. [0064] thereof).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of New to the disclosure of Watanabe and included an array of light sources, such as a plurality of light sources 2 in the form of an array, and modified SLM 14 to be an array so that multiple light beams from multiple optical sources may also be used and combined as required through the system, equivalent to each of the modulators SLM 14 receiving and modulating a portion of the first reflected optical signal (New, par. [0064]), and wherein each portion of the first reflected optical signal passes through and is modulated by only one of the modulators as shown in at least Fig. 7 of New, for advantageous configuration and alignment of elements during use (New, pars. [0033], [0064]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Watanabe in view of Ludwig and New (hereinafter, “modified Watanabe”) discloses the optical computing chip of claim 1, and Watanabe further discloses wherein the light source array (i.e., Watanabe light source 2) is further configured to generate an optical signal based on data (light source 2 generates input light La to optical system 10, par. [0037]),
wherein the first concave mirror (i.e., Watanabe lens 13) is further configured to output a reflected optical signal based on the optical signal (Watanabe Figs. 1 and 2, optical system 10 includes lens 13 that may be a concave mirror, par. [0038], and lens 13 outputs light Lb received from light source 2, where light source 2 generates input light La to optical system 10, pars. [0036-37], where light La is the equivalent of an optical signal, and light Lb is equivalent to a reflected optical signal), and
wherein the modulator array is further configured to obtain an optical signal based on the reflected optical signal and the spectrum plane distribution data (light Lb is passed by lens 13, which as noted above may be a concave mirror, to SLM 14 to form an image on a modulation plane thereof, par. [0038], which as best understood by the Examiner, is the equivalent of obtaining first spectrum plane distribution data based on the first reflected optical signal).
The prior art combination does not clearly disclose the generation of second optical signals based on second data, nor does the prior art combination clearly disclose the first concave mirror (i.e., Watanabe lens 13) is further configured to output a second reflected optical signal based on the second optical signal, nor does the prior art combination clearly disclose wherein the modulator array is further configured to obtain a third optical signal based on the second reflected optical signal and the first spectrum plane distribution data. However, because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and generate first, second, etc., optical data signals and the associated reflected optical signals, as well as the spectrum plane distribution data. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” In this case, the light source 2 disclosed by Watanabe can generate an optical signal while the lens 13, when replaced with a concave mirror as taught by Watanabe, can reflect optical signals, and given the claimed structure recited in the instant application is met by the structures disclosed by Watanabe in view of Ludwig and New, the prior art must be capable of generating and subsequently reflecting as many optical signals as desired or needed for the user.
Regarding dependent claim 3, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing chip of claim 2, and Watanabe further discloses the optical computing chip further comprising:
a second concave mirror (Watanabe Figs. 1 and 2, optical system 10 includes lens 15 that may be a concave mirror, par. [0041], thereby disclosing a second concave mirror), and wherein the second concave mirror is configured to:
receive the optical signal (Watanabe Fig. 2, lens 15 receives modulated light Lc, par. [0041]); and
output a reflected optical signal based on the optical signal (Watanabe Fig. 2, lens 15 outputs light Ld based on modulated light Lc received from SLM 14, par. [0041]); and
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose wherein the modulator array is further located on a second objective focal plane of the second concave mirror, nor does Watanabe disclose a detector array, and therefore does not disclose the detector array located on a second image focal plane of the second concave mirror configured to detect the reflected optical signal, wherein distribution of the reflected optical signal on the detector array indicates a convolution result of the first data and the second data, and Watanabe does not clearly disclose a third optical signal nor third reflected optical signal.
In a related field of invention, Ludwig discloses optics device 100, depicted in at least Fig. 3 thereof, with image source 101 (per col. 4, lines 66-67, image source may be a projection screen, equivalent to a light source), lens system or other equivalent 102, optical transfer function element 103 (equivalent to a modulator), and observation element 106 (equivalent to a detector, see col. 5, lines 50-55 of Ludwig). Ludwig teaches the “lens-law relationship”, labeled as equation (1), and refer to col. 5, lines 1-19 thereof, where Ludwig discloses the Fourier transforming properties of simple lenses and related optical elements as “well known”, and the use of a lens, lens systems, or other means (which Examiner understands to include concave mirrors) to take a first two-dimensional Fourier transform of an optical wavefront, thus creating at a particular spatial location a Fourier plane wherein the amplitude distribution of an original two-dimensional optical image becomes the two-dimensional Fourier transform of itself. In the arrangement of Ludwig Fig. 1 with a lit object serving as the source image 101, the Fourier optics case is obtained when a = b = f, where a is the distance between source 101 and lens (or other optical element) 102, b is the distance between lens element 102 and the Fourier plane 104, and f is the focal length.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Ludwig to the disclosure of Watanabe and included a detector, such as the observation element 106 taught by Ludwig, in the light control apparatus 1A of Watanabe, to receive the results of the optical signal processing of optical system 10 (Ludwig, col. 5, lines 50-55), and to have placed the modulator array at the objective focal plane of lens 15, and detector array at the second image focal plane of the second concave mirror lens 15, to allow for easy, inexpensive, and flexible signal processing of images (Ludwig, col. 5, line 23-33), and as a result the prior art combination teaches and renders obvious a detector array configured to detect the reflected optical signal, wherein distribution of the reflected optical signal on the detector array indicates a convolution result of the first data and the second data (Ludwig teaches convolution of at least two data sets, impulse response corresponding to the optical transfer function, equivalent to one data set, convolved with the original image, equivalent to a second data set, col. 6, lines 2-4).
Regarding dependent claim 7, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing chip of claim 3, and Ludwig further discloses the optical computing chip further comprising four peripheral sides (Ludwig in Fig. 4 shows optics device 100 as a monolithic optics device 120, col. 9, lines 52-54, therefore optics device 120 has at least four peripheral sides as shown in Fig. 4), wherein the light source array and the detector array are located on a same one of the four peripheral sides (source 101 and observation element 106 are on the same upper side of optics device 120 as shown in Fig. 4 of Ludwig).
Regarding dependent claim 9, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing chip of claim 3, but the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the light source array comprises a plurality of stacked light source subarrays, wherein the modulator array comprises a plurality of stacked modulator subarrays, and wherein the detector array comprises a plurality of stacked detector subarrays.
Watanabe in view of Ludwig discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of stacked light source subarrays (Watanabe discloses light source 2 without specifying light source 2 comprises a plurality of light source subarrays, while Ludwig discloses source 101 without specifying source 101 is a plurality of light source subarrays) and a plurality of stacked modulator subarrays (Watanabe and Ludwig both disclose modulators without specifying the modulators are a plurality of stacked modulator subarrays), and Ludwig dos not disclose a plurality of stacked detector subarrays (Ludwig discloses observation element 106 without specifying the observation element 106 is a stacked subarray). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plurality of light sources 2 as taught by Watanabe in the light control apparatus 1A, to have included a plurality of modulators SLM 14 in the light control apparatus 1A, and to have included a plurality of observation elements 16 as taught by Ludwig in device 100, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977).
Regarding amended independent claim 10, Watanabe discloses an optical computing system (light control apparatus 1A, shown in at least Fig. 1, is equivalent to an optical computing system) comprising:
an optical computing chip comprising:
a first concave mirror configured to output a first reflected optical signal based on a first optical signal (Figs. 1 and 2, optical system 10 includes lens 13 that may be a concave mirror, par. [0038], and lens 13 outputs light Lb received from light source 2, where light source 2 generates input light La to optical system 10, pars. [0036-37], where light La is the equivalent of a first optical signal, and light Lb is equivalent to a first reflected optical signal);
a light source (Fig. 1, light control apparatus 1A includes light source 2, pars. [0036-38]) configured to generate the first optical signal based on first data (light source 2 generates input light La to optical system 10, pars. [0036-37], where light La is the equivalent of a first optical signal);
a modulator (Figs. 1 and 2, optical system 10 has SLM 14, par. [0037], where SLM is an initialism for spatial light modulator, par. [0002]) configured to:
receive the first reflected optical signal (Fig. 2, SLM 14 receives light Lb from lens 13, par. [0039]);
obtain first spectrum plane distribution data based on the first reflected optical signal (light Lb is passed by lens 13, which as noted above may be a concave mirror, to SLM 14 to form an image on a modulation plane thereof, which as best understood by the Examiner, is the equivalent of obtaining first spectrum plane distribution data based on the first reflected optical signal, because SLM 14 is optically coupled to diffraction grating 12 via lens 13, and diffraction grating 12 spectrally disperses input light La into a plurality of wavelength components, and light Lb reflected by lens 13 is received by SLM 14 as a plurality of wavelength components, par. [0038]), wherein a transmittance of each of the modulators for the first reflected optical signal indicates a value in the first spectrum plane distribution data (SLM 14 must have a non-zero transmittance to function as intended, because light Lb received by SLM 14 must be transmitted through SLM 14 to reach lens 15, as shown in Fig. 2, and Watanabe discloses SLM 14 modulates a phase and an intensity of each incident wavelength component, and SLM 14 has modulation plane 17 with a plurality of modulation regions 17a, and each corresponding wavelength component after the dispersion is incident on each of the plurality of modulation regions 17a, par. [0040], therefore Watanabe discloses the equivalent result of a transmittance of modulator SLM 14 of light Lb that indicates a value in the wavelength spectrum of light transmitted by SLM 14);
receive a first modulation signal that is based on the first spectrum plane distribution data (modulation pattern calculation apparatus 20, shown in at least Fig. 1, is electrically coupled to SLM 14 and provides a control signal SC including the phase modulation pattern to the SLM 14 to bring output light Ld close to a desired waveform, par. [0045], and the control signal SC includes the calculated phase modulation pattern that is provided to SLM 14, par. [0050], therefore Watanabe teaches a modulation signal based on the first spectrum plane distribution data, that is to say, light Lb received by SLM 14, to output a desired waveform by appropriate modulation according to control signal SC received by SLM 14); and
modulate, based on the first modulation signal and using the modulators, the first spectrum plane distribution data onto the modulator array by changing light intensity of the first reflected optical signal to obtain a modulated optical signal (Fig. 2, SLM 14 performs phase and intensity modulation on light Lb to generate output light Ld, par. [0039]); and
a processor coupled to the optical computing chip and configured to input the first data to the optical computing chip (Fig. 1, light control apparatus 1A includes modulation pattern calculation apparatus 20 which includes a processor, par. [0045]).
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose a light source that is an array (Watanabe discloses light source 2 without specifying the light source is an array), nor does Watanabe disclose the light source is located on a first objective focal plane of the first concave mirror (i.e., lens 13 of Watanabe), and Watanabe does not disclose a modulator that is an array (Watanabe discloses SLM 14 without specifying the modulator is an array), nor does Watanabe disclose the modulator is located on a first image focal plane of the first concave mirror. Watanabe also does not disclose wherein the modulators are arranged along a straight line, and wherein each of the modulators receives and modulates a portion of the first reflected optical signal, and wherein each portion of the first reflected optical signal passes through and is modulated by only one of the modulators.
In a related field of invention, Ludwig discloses optics device 100, depicted in at least Fig. 3 thereof, with image source 101 (per col. 4, lines 66-67, image source may be a projection screen, equivalent to a light source), lens system or other equivalent 102, and optical transfer function element 103 (equivalent to a modulator), and Ludwig teaches controllable optical phase shift elements in array form (col. 3, lines 44-48). Ludwig teaches the “lens-law relationship”, labeled as equation (1), refer to col. 5, lines 1-19 thereof, where Ludwig discloses the Fourier transforming properties of simple lenses and related optical elements as “well known”, and the use of a lens, lens systems, or other means (which Examiner understands to include concave mirrors) to take a first two-dimensional Fourier transform of an optical wavefront, thus creating at a particular spatial location a Fourier plane wherein the amplitude distribution of an original two-dimensional optical image becomes the two-dimensional Fourier transform of itself. In the arrangement of Ludwig Fig. 1 with a lit object serving as the source image 101, the Fourier optics case is obtained when a = b = f, where a is the distance between source 101 and lens (or other optical element) 102, b is the distance between lens element 102 and the Fourier plane 104, and f is the focal length. Furthermore, Ludwig teaches optical transfer function elements 103a and 103b (where, as noted above, element 103 is equivalent to a modulator) arranged along a straight line, as shown in Fig. 3 of Ludwig, and also teaches one or more controllable optical phase shift elements in array form (col. 3, lines 44-48 thereof).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Ludwig to the disclosure of Watanabe and placed light source 2 (which, as taught by Ludwig, may be an array of light emitting diodes, col. 8, lines 53-56) in the form of an array at the objective focal plane of lens 13 (which, as noted above, can be a concave mirror), and to have arranged elements of modulator SLM 14 as an array along a straight line at the image focal plane of lens 13, to allow for easy, inexpensive, and flexible signal processing of images (Ludwig, col. 5, line 23-33).
The prior art combination of Watanabe in view of Ludwig does not disclose wherein each of the modulators receives and modulates a portion of the first reflected optical signal, and wherein each portion of the first reflected optical signal passes through and is modulated by only one of the modulators.
In a related field of invention, New discloses an optical processing system (see at least Fig. 5 thereof), including one or more spatial light modulator arrays and multiple optical sources (pars. [0033], [0058], [0064] thereof). New further discloses how the 4f optical system, shown in Fig. 7 thereof, may be extended by adding further functions into the optical path by employing multiple high resolution pixel arrays, and multiple light beams from multiple optical sources may also be used and combined as required through the system, with the final detector arrays positioned at the output of the system (par. [0064] thereof).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of New to the disclosure of Watanabe and included an array of light sources, such as a plurality of light sources 2 in the form of an array, and modified SLM 14 to be an array so that multiple light beams from multiple optical sources may also be used and combined as required through the system, equivalent to each of the modulators SLM 14 receiving and modulating a portion of the first reflected optical signal (New, par. [0064]), and wherein each portion of the first reflected optical signal passes through and is modulated by only one of the modulators as shown in at least Fig. 7 of New, for advantageous configuration and alignment of elements during use (New, pars. [0033], [0064]).
Regarding dependent claim 11, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing system of claim 10, and Watanabe discloses the system further comprising:
a light source array drive circuit, coupled to the processor and the light source array (Watanabe Fig. 1, light control apparatus 1A includes optical system 10 that receives control signal SC from modulation pattern calculation apparatus 20, par. [0037], and modulation pattern calculation apparatus 20 has a processor, par. [0045], therefore modulation pattern calculation apparatus 20 is the equivalent of a light source array drive circuit), and configured to apply a first drive signal to the light source array based on the first data (modulation pattern calculation apparatus 20 sends signal SC to optical system 10 and light source 2 generates input light La to optical system 10, par. [0037]); and a modulator array drive circuit, coupled to the modulator array (Fig. 1, modulation pattern calculation apparatus 20 is electrically coupled to the SLM 14, par. [0045], and is equivalent to a modulator array drive circuit) and configured to: sample the first spectrum plane distribution data (optical system 10 converts input light La from light source 2 into output light Ld with arbitrary temporal intensity waveform for controlling SLM 14, par. [0037]); and apply the first modulation signal to the optical computing chip based on the first spectrum plane distribution data (Watanabe Fig. 1, modulation pattern generation unit 24 calculates a phase modulation pattern, pars. [0046], [0050]), wherein the light source array is further configured to further generate the first optical signal based on the first drive signal (light control apparatus 1A has light source 2 that generates input light La to optical system 10, par. [0037]), and wherein the modulator array is further configured to further modulate the first spectrum plane distribution data onto the modulator array based on the first modulation signal (Watanabe Fig. 1, modulation pattern generation unit 24 calculates a phase modulation pattern to give the spectrum phase shown by the phase spectrum function calculated in the phase spectrum design unit 22 and the spectrum intensity shown by the intensity spectrum function calculated in the intensity spectrum design unit 23 to the output light Ld, par. [0078]).
Regarding dependent claim 12, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing system of claim 11, and Watanabe further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to send data (Fig. 1, light control apparatus 1A includes modulation pattern calculation apparatus 20 which includes a processor, par. [0045]),
wherein the light source array drive circuit is further configured to generate a drive signal based on the data (modulation pattern calculation apparatus 20 sends signal SC to optical system 10 and light source 2 generates input light La to optical system 10, par. [0037]),
wherein the light source array is further configured to generate, based on the drive signal, an optical signal corresponding to the data (light control apparatus 1A has light source 2 that generates input light La to optical system 10, par. [0037]),
wherein the first concave mirror is further configured to output a reflected optical signal based on the optical signal (Figs. 1 and 2, optical system 10 includes lens 13 that may be a concave mirror, par. [0038], and lens 13 outputs light Lb received from light source 2, where light source 2 generates input light La to optical system 10, pars. [0036-37], where light La is the equivalent of a first optical signal, and light Lb is equivalent to a first reflected optical signal), and
wherein the modulator array is further configured to obtain an optical signal based on the reflected optical signal and the spectrum plane distribution data (light Lb is passed by lens 13, which as noted above may be a concave mirror, to SLM 14 to form an image on a modulation plane thereof, par. [0038], which as best understood by the Examiner, is the equivalent of obtaining first spectrum plane distribution data based on the first reflected optical signal).
The prior art combination does not clearly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to send second data, nor does the prior art combination clearly disclose wherein the light source array drive circuit is further configured to generate a second drive signal based on the second data, nor wherein the first concave mirror is further configured to output a second reflected optical signal based on the second optical signal, nor wherein the modulator array is further configured to obtain a third optical signal based on the second reflected optical signal and the first spectrum plane distribution data. However, because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and generate first, second, etc., drive signals and first, second, etc., optical signals and the associated reflected optical signals, as well as the spectrum plane distribution data. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” In this case, the light source 2 disclosed by Watanabe can generate an optical signal while the lenses 13 and 15, when replaced with a concave mirror as taught by Watanabe, can reflect optical signals, and given the claimed structure recited in the instant application is met by the structures disclosed by Watanabe in view of Ludwig and New, the prior art must be capable of generating and subsequently reflecting and modulating, via SLM 14, as many optical signals as desired or needed for the user.
Regarding dependent claim 13, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing system of claim 12, and Watanabe further discloses wherein the optical computing chip further comprises: a second concave mirror (Watanabe Figs. 1 and 2, optical system 10 includes lens 15 that may be a concave mirror, par. [0041], thereby disclosing a second concave mirror), and wherein the second concave mirror is configured to: receive the optical signal (Watanabe Fig. 2, lens 15 receives modulated light Lc, par. [0041]); and output a reflected optical signal based on the optical signal (Watanabe Fig. 2, lens 15 outputs light Ld based on modulated light Lc received from SLM 14, par. [0041]).
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose wherein the modulator array is further located on a second objective focal plane of the second concave mirror, nor does Watanabe disclose a detector array, and therefore does not disclose the detector array located on a second image focal plane of the second concave mirror and configured to detect the reflected optical signal, and Watanabe does not clearly disclose a third optical signal, nor does Watanabe disclose wherein distribution of the third reflected optical signal on the detector array indicates a convolution result of the first data and the second data.
Ludwig discloses optics device 100, depicted in at least Fig. 3 thereof, with image source 101 (per col. 4, lines 66-67, image source may be a projection screen, equivalent to a light source), lens system or other equivalent 102, optical transfer function element 103 (equivalent to a modulator), and observation element 106 (equivalent to a detector, see col. 5, lines 50-55 of Ludwig). Ludwig teaches the “lens-law relationship”, labeled as equation (1), and refer to col. 5, lines 1-19 thereof, where Ludwig discloses the Fourier transforming properties of simple lenses and related optical elements as “well known”, and the use of a lens, lens systems, or other means (which Examiner understands to include concave mirrors) to take a first two-dimensional Fourier transform of an optical wavefront, thus creating at a particular spatial location a Fourier plane wherein the amplitude distribution of an original two-dimensional optical image becomes the two-dimensional Fourier transform of itself. In the arrangement of Ludwig Fig. 1 with a lit object serving as the source image 101, the Fourier optics case is obtained when a = b = f, where a is the distance between source 101 and lens (or other optical element) 102, b is the distance between lens element 102 and the Fourier plane 104, and f is the focal length. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Ludwig to the disclosure of Watanabe and included a detector, such as the observation element 106 taught by Ludwig, in the light control apparatus 1A of Watanabe, to receive the results of the optical signal processing of optical system 10 (Ludwig, col. 5, lines 50-55), and to have placed the modulator array at the objective focal plane of lens 15, and detector array at the second image focal plane of the second concave mirror lens 15, to allow for easy, inexpensive, and flexible signal processing of images (Ludwig, col. 5, line 23-33), and as a result the prior art combination teaches and renders obvious a detector array configured to detect the reflected optical signal, wherein distribution of the reflected optical signal on the detector array indicates a convolution result of the first data and the second data (Ludwig teaches convolution of at least two data sets, impulse response corresponding to the optical transfer function, equivalent to one data set, convolved with the original image, equivalent to a second data set, col. 6, lines 2-4).
Regarding dependent claim 18, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing system of claim 13, and Ludwig further discloses wherein the optical computing chip further comprises four peripheral sides (Ludwig in Fig. 4 shows optics device 100 as a monolithic optics device 120, col. 9, lines 52-54, therefore optics device 120 has at least four peripheral sides as shown in Fig. 4), and wherein the light source array and the detector array are located on a same one of the four peripheral sides (source 101 and observation element 106 are on the same upper side of optics device 120 as shown in Fig. 4 of Ludwig).
Regarding dependent claim 20, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing system of claim 13, but the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the light source array comprises a plurality of stacked light source subarrays, wherein the modulator array comprises a plurality of stacked modulator subarrays, and wherein the detector array comprises a plurality of stacked detector subarrays.
Watanabe in view of Ludwig discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of stacked light source subarrays (Watanabe discloses light source 2 without specifying light source 2 comprises a plurality of light source subarrays, while Ludwig discloses source 101 without specifying source 101 is a plurality of light source subarrays) and a plurality of stacked modulator subarrays (Watanabe and Ludwig both disclose modulators without specifying the modulators are a plurality of stacked modulator subarrays), and Ludwig dos not disclose a plurality of stacked detector subarrays (Ludwig discloses observation element 106 without specifying the observation element 106 is a stacked subarray). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plurality of light sources 2 as taught by Watanabe in the light control apparatus 1A, to have included a plurality of modulators SLM 14 in the light control apparatus 1A, and to have included a plurality of observation elements 16 as taught by Ludwig in device 100, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977).
Regarding amended independent claim 21, Watanabe discloses a data processing method implemented by an optical computing chip, wherein the data processing method comprises:
generating, by a light source of the optical computing chip, a first optical signal based on first data (Fig. 1, light control apparatus 1A includes light source 2 which generates input light La to optical system 10, par. [0037]);
outputting, by the first concave mirror, a first reflected optical signal based on the first optical signal (Figs. 1 and 2, optical system 10 includes lens 13 that may be a concave mirror, par. [0038], and lens 13 outputs light Lb received from light source 2, where light source 2 generates input light La to optical system 10, pars. [0036-37], where light La is the equivalent of a first optical signal, and light Lb is equivalent to a first reflected optical signal);
obtaining, by a modulator of the optical computing chip, first spectrum plane distribution data based on the first reflected optical signal (light Lb is passed by lens 13, which as noted above may be a concave mirror, to SLM 14 to form an image on a modulation plane thereof, par. [0038], which as best understood by the Examiner, is the equivalent of obtaining first spectrum plane distribution data based on the first reflected optical signal because SLM 14 is optically coupled to diffraction grating 12 via lens 13, and diffraction grating 12 spectrally disperses input light La into a plurality of wavelength components, and light Lb reflected by lens 13 is received by SLM 14 as a plurality of wavelength components, par. [0038]), and wherein a transmittance of each of the modulators for the first reflected optical signal indicates a value in the first spectrum plane distribution data (SLM 14 must have a non-zero transmittance to function as intended, because light Lb received by SLM 14 must be transmitted through SLM 14 to reach lens 15, as shown in Fig. 2, and Watanabe discloses SLM 14 modulates a phase and an intensity of each incident wavelength component, and SLM 14 has modulation plane 17 with a plurality of modulation regions 17a, and each corresponding wavelength component after the dispersion is incident on each of the plurality of modulation regions 17a, par. [0040], therefore Watanabe discloses the equivalent result of a transmittance of modulator SLM 14 of light Lb that indicates a value in the wavelength spectrum of light transmitted by SLM 14);
receiving a first modulation signal that is based on the first spectrum plane distribution data (modulation pattern calculation apparatus 20, shown in at least Fig. 1, is electrically coupled to SLM 14 and provides a control signal SC including the phase modulation pattern to the SLM 14 to bring output light Ld close to a desired waveform, par. [0045], and the control signal SC includes the calculated phase modulation pattern that is provided to SLM 14, par. [0050], therefore Watanabe teaches a modulation signal based on the first spectrum plane distribution data, that is to say, light Lb received by SLM 14, to output a desired waveform by appropriate modulation according to control signal SC received by SLM 14); and
modulating, based on the first modulation signal and using the modulators, the first spectrum plane distribution data onto the modulator array by changing light intensity of the first reflected optical signal to obtain a modulated optical signal (Fig. 2, SLM 14 performs phase and intensity modulation on light Lb, par. [0039]).
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose a light source that is an array (Watanabe discloses light source 2 without specifying the light source is an array), nor does Watanabe disclose the light source is located on a first objective focal plane of the first concave mirror (i.e., lens 13 of Watanabe), and Watanabe does not disclose a modulator that is an array (Watanabe discloses SLM 14 without specifying the modulator is an array), nor does Watanabe disclose the modulator is located on a first image focal plane of the first concave mirror, and Watanabe does not disclose wherein the modulators are arranged along a straight line, and wherein each of the modulators receives and modulates a portion of the first reflected optical signal, and wherein each portion of the first reflected optical signal passes through and is modulated by only one of the modulators.
In a related field of invention, Ludwig discloses optics device 100, depicted in at least Fig. 3 thereof, with image source 101 (per col. 4, lines 66-67, image source may be a projection screen, equivalent to a light source), lens system or other equivalent 102, and optical transfer function element 103 (equivalent to a modulator), and Ludwig teaches controllable optical phase shift elements in array form (col. 3, lines 44-48). Ludwig teaches the “lens-law relationship”, labeled as equation (1), refer to col. 5, lines 1-19 thereof, where Ludwig discloses the Fourier transforming properties of simple lenses and related optical elements as “well known”, and the use of a lens, lens systems, or other means (which Examiner understands to include concave mirrors) to take a first two-dimensional Fourier transform of an optical wavefront, thus creating at a particular spatial location a Fourier plane wherein the amplitude distribution of an original two-dimensional optical image becomes the two-dimensional Fourier transform of itself. In the arrangement of Ludwig Fig. 1 with a lit object serving as the source image 101, the Fourier optics case is obtained when a = b = f, where a is the distance between source 101 and lens (or other optical element) 102, b is the distance between lens element 102 and the Fourier plane 104, and f is the focal length. Furthermore, Ludwig teaches optical transfer function elements 103a and 103b (where, as noted above, element 103 is equivalent to a modulator) arranged along a straight line, as shown in Fig. 3 of Ludwig, and also teaches one or more controllable optical phase shift elements in array form (col. 3, lines 44-48 thereof).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Ludwig to the disclosure of Watanabe and placed light source 2 (which, as taught by Ludwig, may be an array of light emitting diodes, col. 8, lines 53-56) in the form of an array at the objective focal plane of lens 13 (which, as noted above, can be a concave mirror), and to have arranged modulator SLM 14 along a straight line at the image focal plane of lens 13, to allow for easy, inexpensive, and flexible signal processing of images (Ludwig, col. 5, line 23-33).
The prior art combination of Watanabe in view of Ludwig does not disclose wherein each of the modulators receives and modulates a portion of the first reflected optical signal, and wherein each portion of the first reflected optical signal passes through and is modulated by only one of the modulators.
In a related field of invention, New discloses an optical processing system (see at least Fig. 5 thereof), including one or more spatial light modulator arrays and multiple optical sources (pars. [0033], [0058], [0064] thereof). New further discloses how the 4f optical system, shown in Fig. 7 thereof, may be extended by adding further functions into the optical path by employing multiple high resolution pixel arrays, and multiple light beams from multiple optical sources may also be used and combined as required through the system, with the final detector arrays positioned at the output of the system (par. [0064] thereof).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of New to the disclosure of Watanabe and included an array of light sources, such as a plurality of light sources 2 in the form of an array, and modified SLM 14 to be an array so that multiple light beams from multiple optical sources may also be used and combined as required through the system, equivalent to each of the modulators SLM 14 receiving and modulating a portion of the first reflected optical signal (New, par. [0064]), and wherein each portion of the first reflected optical signal passes through and is modulated by only one of the modulators as shown in at least Fig. 7 of New, for advantageous configuration and alignment of elements during use (New, pars. [0033], [0064]).
Regarding dependent claim 22, modified Watanabe discloses the data processing method of claim 21, and Watanabe further discloses the data processing method further comprising:
generating, by the light source, an optical signal based on data (light source 2 generates input light La to optical system 10, par. [0037], equivalent to an optical signal based on data);
outputting, by the first concave mirror, a reflected optical signal based on the optical signal (Watanabe Figs. 1 and 2, optical system 10 includes lens 13 that may be a concave mirror, par. [0038], and lens 13 outputs light Lb received from light source 2, where light source 2 generates input light La to optical system 10, pars. [0036-37], where light La is the equivalent of an optical signal, and light Lb is equivalent to a reflected optical signal);
obtaining, by the modulator, an optical signal based on the reflected optical signal and the spectrum plane distribution data (Watanabe Figs. 1 and 2, optical system 10 has SLM 14, par. [0037], where SLM is an initialism for spatial light modulator, par. [0002], and modulator SLM 14 receives light Lb from lens 13);
outputting, by a second concave mirror of the optical computing chip, a reflected optical signal based on the optical signal (Watanabe Figs. 1 and 2, optical system 10 includes lens 15 that may be a concave mirror, par. [0041], thereby disclosing a second concave mirror),
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose a light source array (Watanabe discloses light source 2 without specifying the light source is an array), nor does Watanabe disclose a modulator array (Watanabe discloses SLM 14 without specifying the modulator is an array), nor does Watanabe disclose wherein the modulator array is further located on a second objective focal plane of the second concave mirror, and Watanabe does not disclose detecting, by a detector array of the optical computing chip, the third reflected optical signal, because Watanabe does not disclose a detector explicitly, therefore Watanabe does not disclose wherein the detector array is located on a second image focal plane of the second concave mirror, and Watanabe does not disclose wherein distribution of the third reflected optical signal on the detector array indicates a convolution result of the first data and the second data. Furthermore, the prior art does not clearly disclose the generation of second optical signals based on second data, nor does the prior art combination clearly disclose the first concave mirror (i.e., Watanabe lens 13) is further configured to output a second reflected optical signal based on the second optical signal, nor does the prior art combination clearly disclose wherein the modulator array is further configured to obtain a third optical signal based on the second reflected optical signal and the first spectrum plane distribution data.
Ludwig discloses optics device 100, depicted in at least Fig. 3 thereof, with image source 101 (per col. 4, lines 66-67, image source may be a projection screen, equivalent to a light source), lens system or other equivalent 102, and optical transfer function element 103 (equivalent to a modulator). Ludwig teaches the “lens-law relationship”, labeled as equation (1), and refer to col. 5, lines 1-19 thereof, where Ludwig discloses the Fourier transforming properties of simple lenses and related optical elements as “well known”, and the use of a lens, lens systems, or other means (which Examiner understands to include concave mirrors) to take a first two-dimensional Fourier transform of an optical wavefront, thus creating at a particular spatial location a Fourier plane wherein the amplitude distribution of an original two-dimensional optical image becomes the two-dimensional Fourier transform of itself. In the arrangement of Ludwig Fig. 1 with a lit object serving as the source image 101, the Fourier optics case is obtained when a = b = f, where a is the distance between source 101 and lens (or other optical element) 102, b is the distance between lens element 102 and the Fourier plane 104, and f is the focal length. Ludwig also teaches convolution of at least two data sets, impulse response corresponding to the optical transfer function, equivalent to one data set, convolved with the original image, equivalent to a second data set, col. 6, lines 2-4.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Ludwig to the disclosure of Watanabe and placed light source 2 at the objective focal plane of lens 13, and modulator SLM 14 at the image focal plane of lens 13, to allow for easy, inexpensive, and flexible signal processing of images (Ludwig, col. 5, lines 23-33).
New discloses an optical processing system (see at least Fig. 5 thereof), including one or more spatial light modulator arrays and multiple optical sources (pars. [0033], [0058], [0064] thereof). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of New to the disclosure of Watanabe and included an array of light sources, such as a plurality of light sources 2 and modified SLM 14 to be an array, for advantageous configuration and alignment of elements during use (New, pars. [0033], [0064]).
Examiner notes that because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and generate first, second, etc., optical data signals and the associated reflected optical signals, as well as first, second, etc., spectrum plane distribution data. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” In this case, the light source 2 disclosed by Watanabe can generate an optical signal while the lenses 13 and 15, when replaced with a concave mirror as taught by Watanabe, can reflect optical signals, and given the claimed structure recited in the instant application is met by the structures disclosed by Watanabe in view of Ludwig and New, the prior art must be capable of generating and subsequently reflecting and modulating as many optical signals as desired or needed for the user.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, Ludwig, and New as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Burns et al. US Patent 7,262,902 B2 (of record, see Office action dated 06/16/2025, hereinafter, “Burns”).
Regarding dependent claim 5, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing chip of claim 1, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein the modulators comprise at least one of a doped silicon waveguide, an electroabsorption modulator, or a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA).
In the same field of invention, Burns discloses an optical resonant modulator and teaches examples of suitable materials for modulators include doped SiO2 waveguides (col. 6, lines 53-58 thereof). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Burns to the disclosure of Watanabe and made SLM 14 of light control apparatus 1A of doped SiO2 as a waveguide, because the prior art teaches doped silicon dioxide is a suitable material for modulators in optical components (Burns, col. 6, lines 53-58).
Regarding dependent claim 16, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing system of claim 10, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein the modulator array comprises a modulator that is implemented by at least one of a doped silicon waveguide, an electroabsorption modulator, or a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA).
In the same field of invention, Burns discloses an optical resonant modulator and teaches examples of suitable materials for modulators include doped SiO2 waveguides (col. 6, lines 53-58 thereof). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Burns to the disclosure of Watanabe and made SLM 14 of light control apparatus 1A of doped SiO2 as a waveguide, because the prior art teaches doped silicon dioxide is a suitable material for modulators in optical components (Burns, col. 6, lines 53-58).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, Ludwig, and New as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Goodman, Joseph W., A. R. Dias, and L. M. Woody. "Fully parallel, high-speed incoherent optical method for performing discrete Fourier transforms." Optics Letters 2.1 (1978): 1-3 (of record, see Office action dated 06/16/2025, hereinafter, “Goodman”).
Regarding dependent claim 6, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing chip of claim 1, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein the light source array comprises a plurality of light emitting elements, nor does the prior art combination disclose wherein each of the light emitting elements is configured to generate incoherent light.
Watanabe discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of light emitting elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plurality of light sources 2 as disclosed by Watanabe in the light control apparatus 1A, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977).
In the general field of optical computing methods, Goodman discloses an optical data-processing method using incoherent light (refer to title and abstract, and see Fig. 1 thereof, and refer to page 1, column 1, teaching the use of incoherent light for the calculation of discrete Fourier transforms with an optical processor). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Goodman to the disclosure of Watanabe and used a light source capable of generating incoherent light as light source 2, for the high data-throughput rate possible with an incoherent light source (Goodman, column 1, first full paragraph).
Regarding dependent claim 17, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing system of claim 10, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein the light source array comprises a plurality of light emitting elements, nor does the prior art combination disclose wherein each of the light emitting elements is configured to generate incoherent light.
Watanabe discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of light emitting elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a plurality of light sources 2 as disclosed by Watanabe in the light control apparatus 1A, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977).
In the general field of optical computing methods, Goodman discloses an optical data-processing method using incoherent light (refer to title and abstract, and see Fig. 1 thereof, and refer to page 1, column 1, teaching the use of incoherent light for the calculation of discrete Fourier transforms with an optical processor). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Goodman to the disclosure of Watanabe and used a light source capable of generating incoherent light as light source 2, for the high data-throughput rate possible with an incoherent light source (Goodman, column 1, first full paragraph).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, Ludwig, and New as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Fletcher et al. US Patent 3,752,564 (of record, see Office action dated 06/16/2025, hereinafter, “Fletcher”).
Regarding dependent claim 8, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing chip of claim 3, but the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the first concave mirror (i.e., Watanabe lens 13) and the second concave mirror (i.e., Watanabe lens 15) are parabolic concave mirrors.
In the same field of optical data processing, Fletcher discloses an optical data processing system, shown in at least Fig. 2 thereof, with paraboloidal mirrors, such as mirror 12 and mirror segment 16. Examiner notes that a paraboloid is a three-dimensional surface generated by rotating a parabola around its axis of symmetry, therefore a two-dimensional section of a paraboloidal mirror would be a parabola, and as such satisfies the limitation of a parabolic concave mirror. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Fletcher to the disclosure of Watanabe and used parabolic mirrors for the concave mirrors in optical system 10 of light control apparatus 1A, because parabolic mirrors are inherently free from spherical aberration and the optical signal processed can be larger for parabolic mirrors than for lenses (Fletcher, col. 4, lines 39-60).
Regarding dependent claim 19, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing system of claim 13, but the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the first concave mirror (i.e., Watanabe lens 13) and the second concave mirror (i.e., Watanabe lens 15) are parabolic concave mirrors.
In the same field of optical data processing, Fletcher discloses an optical data processing system, shown in at least Fig. 2 thereof, with paraboloidal mirrors, such as mirror 12 and mirror segment 16. Examiner notes that a paraboloid is a three-dimensional surface generated by rotating a parabola around its axis of symmetry, therefore a two-dimensional section of a paraboloidal mirror would be a parabola, and as such satisfy the limitation of a parabolic concave mirror. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Fletcher to the disclosure of Watanabe and used parabolic mirrors for the concave mirrors in optical system 10 of light control apparatus 1A, because parabolic mirrors are inherently free from spherical aberration and the optical signal processed can be larger for parabolic mirrors than for lenses (Fletcher, col. 4, lines 39-60).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, Ludwig, and New as applied to claims 10 and 13 above, and further in view of Stevens US Patent 8,316,073 B1 (of record, see Office action dated 06/16/2025, hereinafter, “Stevens”).
Regarding dependent claim 14, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing system of claim 13, and Ludwig further discloses obtaining the convolution result (Ludwig teaches convolution of at least two data sets, impulse response corresponding to the optical transfer function, equivalent to one data set, convolved with the original image, equivalent to a second data set, col. 6, lines 2-4), but the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose the system further comprising a detector array drive circuit, coupled to the detector array (Ludwig discloses an observation element 106 that is equivalent to a detector array, but does not describe or disclose a drive circuit for the observation element 106), and therefore the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose a detector array drive circuit configured to: capture the third reflected optical signal from the detector array; and perform analog-to-digital conversion on the third reflected optical signal.
In a related field of invention, Stevens discloses an optical processor (see title and abstract thereof) with an analog to digital converter that converts analog electrical signals to digital signals for output to a register and thereon to a main processor or memory in a computer (col. 3, lines 18-26 thereof). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Stevens to the disclosure of Watanabe and included an analog-to-digital converter to convert analog optical signals to digital signals for processing by a computer processor (Stevens, col. 1, lines 20-55).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, Ludwig, and New as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of White US Patent 5,040,859 (of record, see Office action dated 10/09/2025, hereinafter, “White”) and Okuda WO 2019/111295 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 010/09/2025, where the closest English language equivalent Okuda et al. US PGPub 2021/0175682 A1 is cited, hereinafter, “Okuda”).
Regarding dependent claim 24, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing chip of claim 1, but the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the modulator array is further configured to: obtain the first spectrum plane distribution data by applying a forward voltage to the modulators; and modulate the first spectrum plane distribution data by applying a reverse bias voltage to the modulators.
In the same field of invention, White discloses an infra-red radiation modulator, see at least Fig. 1 thereof, wherein the reflectivity and transmissivity of the modulator is varied by the applied forward voltage bias (refer to at least col. 2 line 58 to col. 3 line 48). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of White to the disclosure of Watanabe and used forward voltage on SLM 14 to obtain first spectrum plane distribution data, to control the reflectivity and transmissivity of the modulator to radiation (White, col. 2, lines 20-27).
The prior art combination of modified Watanabe in view of White does not explicitly teach applying a reverse bias voltage to the modulator to modulate the first spectrum plane distribution data.
In the same field of invention, Okuda discloses an electro-absorption modulator 16, shown in at least Fig. 1 thereof, wherein, when a specified reverse-bias voltage is applied to the electro-absorption modulator 16, the incident light 33 is not emitted from the electro-absorption modulator 16, and when the reverse-bias voltage is not applied to modulator 16, the incident light 33 is emitted by modulator 16 (par. [0033] thereof). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Okuda to the disclosure of Watanabe and used reverse bias voltage on SLM 14 to modulate first spectrum plane distribution data, to improve reliable performance of the modulator element with reduced temperature sensitivity (Okuda, par. [0013]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, Ludwig, and New as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Gupta et al. US Patent 5,325,388 (hereinafter, “Gupta”).
Regarding new dependent claim 25, modified Watanabe discloses the optical computing chip of claim 1, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein each of the modulators is configured to change its light transmittance according to an applied voltage to module the light intensity (Watanabe, Ludwig, and New are silent as to relationships between transmittance and voltage).
In a related field of invention, Gupta discloses optical waveguide 10, shown in at least Fig. 4 thereof and refer to at least col. 8, lines 15-48 of Gupta, where modulators 12 and 14, at least, have output intensities that are a function of the applied bias, i.e., their transmittance depends on voltage applied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Gupta to the disclosure of Watanabe and made SLM 14 have transmittance that depends on voltage, because Gupta teaches a design for an optical network device that can be easily implemented with existing materials and formed with existing components (Gupta, col. 3, lines 19-29).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the combination of Watanabe, Ludwig, and New fails to disclose all of the limitations set forth in the amended independent claims 1, 10, and 21, and consequently does not render claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-22, and 24 obvious. Specifically, Applicant has argued the combination of Watanabe, Ludwig, and New fails to teach that a modulator array comprises a plurality of modulators, wherein the modulators are arranged along a straight line, wherein each of the modulators receives and modulates a portion of a first reflected optical signal, and wherein each portion of the first reflected optical signal passes through and is modulated by only one of the modulators. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applied prior art teaches the limitations in the amended and new claims. Ludwig in Fig. 3 teaches optical transfer function elements 103a and 103b, (where, as noted above, element 103 is equivalent to a modulator) are arranged along a straight line, and Ludwig teaches controllable optical phase shift elements in array form (col. 3, lines 44-48 thereof). The prior art reference New discloses how the 4f optical system, shown in Fig. 7 thereof, may be extended by adding further functions into the optical path by employing multiple high resolution pixel arrays, and multiple light beams from multiple optical sources may also be used and combined as required through the system, with the final detector arrays positioned at the output of the system (par. [0064] thereof). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to look to Ludwig and New for teachings relevant to constructing an optical computing chip for easy, inexpensive, and flexible signal processing of images (Ludwig, col. 5, line 23-33) and for advantageous configuration and alignment of elements during use (New, pars. [0033], [0064]).
No other substantial arguments were presented after page 16 of Remarks. Therefore, the prior art teaches the invention as currently recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin W Hustoft whose telephone number is (571)272-4519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872