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 information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/29/2022, 12/14/2022 and 07/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements mentioned above are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 appears to contain a typographical error and should be changed to: “further comprising the step of normalizing the optical outputs by rendering the highest value in the optical equal to the highest value in the bit range and applying linear scaling over the other values.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation of: “applying a Fourier Transform (FT) to obtain Fourier coefficients”. It is unclear what the Fourier Transform is being applied to. Earlier in the claim there is mention in a limitation of a binary matrix, furthermore there is mention in another limitation of an integer multiplied to each row of the binary matrix (which indicates a vector of integer values). It is unclear if the Fourier transform is meant to be applied to either the binary matrix, the integer vector, the output of the product of the binary matrix multiplied with an integer specific to each row, or some other value or set of values entirely. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the Fourier transform is applied to the output of the binary matrix multiplied by the integer specific to each row.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites the limitation of: “applying a linear combination across the rows.” It is unclear if the linear combination across the rows is meant to be understood as applying a linear combination across the binary matrix rows, or if it is meant to be understood as applying a linear combination across the output of the binary matrix multiplied by an integer specific to each row of the binary matrix, or if it is meant to be understood as applying a linear combination across the rows of some other matrix or set of rows entirely. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation as it is applying a linear combination across the output of the binary matrix multiplied by an integer specific to each row.
Claims 2-16, and 18 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitation of: “re-stitching the vectors of the Fourier coefficients into columns of a further 2D matrix with columns and rows”. It is unclear if the 2D matrix of this limitation is generated as part of the calculations in any of the previous claim limitations, or if the 2D matrix is a new input, or if it comes from some other calculation entirely.
Claims 11-13, and 15 inherit the same deficiency as claim 10 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the limitation of: “summing across the rows by optical combination of the waveguides that make up each row of the 2D matrix into a single optical signal.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the 2D matrix of the limitation is referring to the binary matrix of claim 1 or the matrix of claim 10.
Furthermore, it is unclear if the limitation of “summing across the rows by optical combination of the waveguides that make up each row of the 2D matrix into a single optical signal” is meant to be understood as summing across each row such that each row results in a single optical signal or if it is meant to be understood as summing across all of the rows together such that in total there is only a single optical signal.
Claims 13, and 15 inherit the same deficiency as claim 12 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the limitation of: “obtaining arbitrary precision”. The phrase “arbitrary precision” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, claim 16 recites the limitation of: “obtaining arbitrary precision on a precision limited machine using multiple passes and post processing of partial outputs”. Claim 16 is dependent on claim 1. It is unclear what partial outputs the limitation of claim 16 is referring to.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the limitation of: “an optical processor configured to calculate a Fourier Transform (FT) to obtain a matrix of Fourier coefficients”. It is unclear what the Fourier Transform is being applied to. Earlier in the claim there is mention in a limitation of an integer matrix. It is unclear if the Fourier transform is meant to be applied to the integer matrix, or some other input entirely. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the Fourier transform is applied to the integer matrix of the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Collins Jr et al. (U.S. Patent 4739520A), hereinafter, “Collins”.
With regards to claim 17, Collins teaches:
A processing system comprising an electronic processor (Column 5 lines 62-67 regarding the system incorporating minicomputers (as electronic processors); Column 2 liens 38-41 regarding the system operating incorporating digital optical computing);
configured to convert an input message into an integer matrix with columns and rows, (Column 8 lines 30-39 regarding light spots as input data; Column 7 lines 60-67 regarding the matrix shown with integer values);
and an optical processor configured to calculate a Fourier Transform (FT) to obtain a matrix of Fourier coefficients; (Column 7 lines 60-67 regarding output column vector B; Column 8 lines 45-50 regarding output vector B being found by sampling the output Fourier transform plane through a slit (which indicates it is a column vector of Fourier Coefficients); Figs. 5-7 (as an optical processor));
wherein the FT is an optical FT; (Column 10 lines 50-58 regarding the Fourier transform performed by cylindrical lenses; Figs. 5-7; Column 6 lines 18-19 regarding fig. 6 as showing an optical Fourier transform);
the optical processor being further configured to apply a linear combination across the rows. (Column 7 lines 48-67 regarding description of the binary matrix (shown), and description of vector A with elements corresponding to elements of the binary matrix, furthermore showing output vector B, which is a linear combination across the rows in matrix multiplication).
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins, in view of Zhang et al (CN 101630178B).
With regards to claim 1, the recitation of “a hashing method” in the preamble has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa V. Robie, 88 USPQ478 (CCPA 1951).
Furthermore, regarding claim 1, Collins teaches:
comprising the steps of: converting an input message into a binary input matrix with columns and rows; (Column 8 lines 30-39 regarding light spots as input data; Column 7 lines 60-67 regarding the binary matrix shown);
multiplying the binary matrix with a value specific to each row; (Column 7 lines 48-67 regarding description of the binary matrix (shown), and description of vector A with elements corresponding to elements of the binary matrix);
applying a Fourier Transform (FT) to obtain Fourier coefficients; (Column 7 lines 60-67 regarding output column vector B; Column 8 lines 45-50 regarding output vector B being found by sampling the output Fourier transform plane through a slit (which indicates it is a column vector of Fourier Coefficients));
wherein the FT is an optical FT; (Column 10 lines 50-58 regarding the Fourier transform performed by cylindrical lenses; Figs. 5-7; Column 6 lines 18-19 regarding fig. 6 as showing an optical Fourier transform);
and applying a linear combination across the rows. (Column 7 lines 48-67 regarding description of the binary matrix (shown), and description of vector A with elements corresponding to elements of the binary matrix, furthermore showing output vector B, which is a linear combination across the rows in matrix multiplication).
Collins does not explicitly teach:
Multiplying the binary matrix with an integer
However, Zhang teaches:
Multiplying the binary matrix with an integer (Page 3 paragraph 12 regarding an optical vector-matrix multiplier with a binary matrix and integer values in the vector; Page 6 regarding the vector-matrix multiplication shown; Page 6 paragraph 2 regarding optical vector-matrix multiplication with a binary matrix and binary (as integer values) vector; Page 7 paragraph 8-9 regarding the Optical vector-matrix multiplication using fixed point values)
Collins refers to the values of the vector in the vector-matrix multiplication as part of continuous functions modeled as discrete binary valued image points (Column 8 lines 51-58). Further, the vector values in are described as digital intensities of images at discrete points (Column 8 lines 65-67). Collins, however, is not explicitly clear on the format of the values of vector A. Zhang describes a system of optical vector-matrix multiplication, but is more explicit regarding the values in the vector being multiplied (as referenced above). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Collins with Zhang because it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, MPEP 2141 (III)(B).
With regards to claim 2, Collins in view of Zhang teaches the hashing method according to claim 1 as referenced above.
Collins further teaches:
wherein the optical FT is a 2D optical FT which calculates a matrix of Fourier coefficients. (Column 7 lines 60-67 regarding output column vector B; Column 8 lines 45-50 regarding output vector B being found by sampling the output Fourier transform plane through a slit (which indicates it is a column vector of Fourier Coefficients)).
With regards to claim 5, Collins in view of Zhang teaches the hashing method according to claim 1 as referenced above.
Collins further teaches:
wherein the step of applying a linear combination is optical. (Column 7 lines 48-67 regarding description of the binary matrix (shown), and description of vector A with elements corresponding to elements of the binary matrix, furthermore showing output vector B, which is a linear combination across the rows in matrix multiplication; Column 10 lines 50-58 regarding the Fourier transform performed by cylindrical lenses; Figs. 5-7; Column 6 lines 18-19 regarding fig. 6 as showing an optical Fourier transform).
With regards to claim 8, Collins in view of Zhang teaches the hashing method according to claim 1 as referenced above.
Collins further teaches:
wherein each column of the matrix is fed in parallel to a single free-space optical FT in order to provide outputs from the optical FT. (Column 10 lines 50-58 regarding the Fourier transform performed by cylindrical lenses; Figs. 5-7; Column 6 lines 18-19 regarding fig. 6 as showing an optical Fourier transform).
With regards to claim 9, Collins in view of Zhang teaches the hashing method according to claim 8 as referenced above.
Collins further teaches:
wherein the outputs are fed into an array of waveguides to represent vectors of Fourier coefficients. (Column 11 lines 16-19 regarding the input and output of the matrix-vector multiplication (the optical circuit) uses optical fibers (as waveguides)).
With regards to claim 18, Collins teaches:
A processing system comprising an electronic processor and an optical processor (Column 7 lines 48-67 regarding description of the binary matrix (shown), and description of vector A with elements corresponding to elements of the binary matrix, furthermore showing output vector B, which is a linear combination across the rows in matrix multiplication);
Furthermore, Collins in view of Zhang teaches configured to carry out the hashing method of claim 1 as referenced above.
Deferring of Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner is deferring indication of allowable subject matter over prior art regarding claim 16 pending resolution of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections made.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-7, and 10-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the applicant claims a method using matrix multiplication and optical Fourier transform for hashing, whereas the method of claim 1 comprises:
converting an input message into a binary input matrix with columns and rows; multiplying the binary matrix with an integer specific to each row; applying a Fourier Transform (FT) to obtain Fourier coefficients; wherein the FT is an optical FT; and applying a linear combination across the rows.
Furthermore, the method of claim 2 comprises:
wherein the optical FT is a 2D optical FT which calculates a matrix of Fourier coefficients.
Furthermore, the method of claim 3 comprises:
further comprising the step of applying an element wise matrix multiplication in the Fourier domain with an additional matrix of the same size.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the applicant claims a method using matrix multiplication and optical Fourier transform for hashing, whereas the method of claim 1 comprises:
converting an input message into a binary input matrix with columns and rows; multiplying the binary matrix with an integer specific to each row; applying a Fourier Transform (FT) to obtain Fourier coefficients; wherein the FT is an optical FT; and applying a linear combination across the rows.
Furthermore, the method of claim 4 comprises:
further comprising the step of applying an optical Inverse Fourier Transform (IFT) before the step of applying a linear combination across rows.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Regarding claims 6-7, the applicant claims a method using matrix multiplication and optical Fourier transform for hashing, whereas the method of claim 1 comprises:
converting an input message into a binary input matrix with columns and rows; multiplying the binary matrix with an integer specific to each row; applying a Fourier Transform (FT) to obtain Fourier coefficients; wherein the FT is an optical FT; and applying a linear combination across the rows.
Furthermore, the method of claim 6 comprises:
the steps of converting and multiplication of matrix elements are realized electronically prior to any optical processing.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Regarding claims 10-13 and 15, the applicant claims a method using matrix multiplication and optical Fourier transform for hashing, whereas the method of claim 1 comprises:
converting an input message into a binary input matrix with columns and rows; multiplying the binary matrix with an integer specific to each row; applying a Fourier Transform (FT) to obtain Fourier coefficients; wherein the FT is an optical FT; and applying a linear combination across the rows.
Furthermore, the method of claim 10 comprises:
further comprising the step of re-stitching the vectors of the Fourier coefficients into columns of a further 2D matrix with columns and rows.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Regarding claim 14, the applicant claims a method using matrix multiplication and optical Fourier transform for hashing, whereas the method of claim 1 comprises:
converting an input message into a binary input matrix with columns and rows; multiplying the binary matrix with an integer specific to each row; applying a Fourier Transform (FT) to obtain Fourier coefficients; wherein the FT is an optical FT; and applying a linear combination across the rows.
Furthermore, the method of claim 14 comprises:
further comprising the step of normalising the optical outputs by rendering the highest value in the output equal to the highest value in the bit range and applying linear scaling over the other values.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Collins, and Collins in view of Zhang teaches limitations of the claimed invention as shown above. Collins teaches a binary matrix, vector-matrix multiplication, and optical Fourier transforms. Zhang similarly teaches vector-matrix multiplication, and teaches a vector of integer (including binary and fixed point) values. Collins and Collins in view of Zhang are silent with respect to the above highlighted limitations in combination with the remaining limitations including intervening claims.
Goodman et al. (J. W. Goodman, A. R. Dias, and L. M. Woody, "Fully parallel, high-speed incoherent optical method for performing discrete Fourier transforms," Opt. Lett. 2, 1-3 (1978)), hereinafter, “Goodman”, teaches vector-matrix multiplication (a matrix multiplied by a value specific to each row), and further teaches an optical processor for calculating optical Fourier transformations. Goodman however, teaches the matrix and vector to be real non-negative values, and furthermore is silent with respect to the above highlighted limitations in combination with the remaining limitations including intervening claims.
Andregg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0107237 A1), hereinafter “Andregg”, teaches matrix multiplication, and optical Fourier transform calculations. Andregg, however, seemingly does not explicitly teach or suggest a binary matrix nor a binary matrix multiplied by integers specific to each row. Furthermore, Andregg is silent with respect to the above highlighted limitations in combination with the remaining limitations including intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME ANTHONY KLOSTERMAN II whose telephone number is (571)272-0541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am ET - 3:30pm ET.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at 571-272-3702. 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.
/J.A.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2182 /EMILY E LAROCQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182