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 .
Response to Arguments
Remarks
The Examiner acknowledges amendments to claims 1-17, and new claim 19.
Claim Objections
The Examiner acknowledges amendments to claim 14. The Examiner withdraws the objection to claim 14 due to an amendment to the claim.
35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The Examiner acknowledges amendments to claims 1-17. The Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections made to claims 1-15, and 17-18 due to amendments to the claims. The Examiner notes, however, that amendments to claim 16 seemingly do not address one of the 112(b) rejections made against claim 16, regarding “partial outputs”, as referenced in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action mailed on 03/09/2026. Therefore, the 112(b) rejection regarding claim 16 remains. Furthermore, see further 112(b) rejections below necessitated by amendments.
35 U.S.C. 102
The Examiner acknowledges and has fully considered the applicant’s arguments. The applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks pages 6-7), that the cited prior art of Collins et al. (U.S. Patent 4739520), hereinafter “Collins”, does not anticipate all of the claimed features of amended claim 17. The Examiner respectfully agrees, and withdraws the 102 rejection regarding claim 17 due to the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 103
The Examiner acknowledges and has fully considered the applicant’s arguments. The applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks pages 7-8), the cited prior art of Collins, and Collins in view of the cited prior art of Zhang et al. (CN 101630178B), hereinafter “Zhang”, does not teach or suggest all of the claimed features of amended claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, and claim 18. The Examiner respectfully agrees and withdraws the 103 rejections made to the claims due to amendments to the claims. See below 35 U.S.C. rejections necessitated by amendments.
New Claim
The Examiner acknowledges the newly added claim, claim 19.
Conclusion
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s conclusion statements.
Indicated allowable subject matter
The Examiner respectfully notes that the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art regarding claims 3-4, 6-7, and 10-15 in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 03/09/2026 are withdrawn necessitated by amendments to the claims. See 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections below necessitated by amendments to the claims. Furthermore, see below new reasons for indication of allowable subject matter necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Specification
The applicant’s specification is objected to because the paragraphs are not numbered, and thus is failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6) “should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 appears to contain a grammatical error and should be changed to: “multiplication of each row is performed element-wise using multiplicands from a pre-determined vector.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “converting the input message into an input matrix comprises: converting the input message into a binary input matrix with columns and rows; and multiplying the rows of the binary matrix with an integer specific to each row to obtain the input matrix” of claim 19, and “obtaining a signal with a first precision using a machine operating in a second precision using multiple passes and post processing of partial outputs, wherein the second precision is lower than the first precision” of claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 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.
With regards to claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitations of: “applying a linear-combination transformation across rows of a matrix based on the one or more data structures comprising Fourier coefficients”. It is unclear if the limitation of “based on the one or more data structures comprising Fourier coefficient” is meant to be referring to the matrix being “based on the one or more data structures comprising Fourier coefficients”, or if the limitation is meant to be understood as the manner in which the linear-combination transformation is applied across rows, “applying a linear-combination transformation across rows”, as being “based on the one or more data structures comprising Fourier coefficients”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the matrix is what is based on the data structures comprising Fourier coefficients.
Claims 2-16, and 18-19 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence.
With regards to claim 12, claim 12 recites the limitations of: “wherein each waveguide in the plurality of waveguides represents a row of the first 2D matrix”. Claim 12 is dependent on claims 9, and 10, wherein claim 9 recites the limitations of: “array of waveguides to represent the vectors of Fourier coefficients” wherein claim 10 recites the limitations of: “re-stitching the vectors of said Fourier coefficients into columns of the first 2D matrix”. The limitation of claim 10 indicates that the vectors of the Fourier coefficients are re-stitched into the columns of the first 2D matrix, with claim 9 giving context that the waveguides represent the vectors. It is unclear how the limitation of claim 12, “wherein each waveguide in the plurality of waveguides represents a row of the first 2D matrix” coincides with the limitations of claims 9, and 10 indicating that the waveguides represent vectors in the columns, not rows, of the first 2D matrix. It is unclear if these limitations of claim 12 are meant to replace the limitations of claims 9 and 10, or if claim 12 is meaning that the waveguides have additionally been re-stitched to rows of the first 2D matrix.
Claims 13 and 15 inherit the same deficiency as claim 12 based on dependence.
With regards to claim 13, claim 13 recites the limitations of: “wherein the modular output signal represents an integer modulo p”. A modulo is an operation1 which provides the remainder of dividing one number by another number. An integer modulo p would simply be another integer value if p is an integer, or a floating point number if p is a floating point number. The claim, however, does not define ‘p’. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to be understood as the modular output signal represents an integer, or if the modular output signal represents a floating point number, or if the modular output signal represents an integer and a further calculation, the modulo p operation, is applied to the output signal representation.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the limitations of: “obtaining a signal with a first precision using a machine operating in a second precision using multiple passes and post processing of partial outputs”. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to be understood as the act of obtaining a signal with a first precision is done through a machine using multiple passes and post processing partial outputs, or if the limitation is meant to be understood as a signal is received (obtained) by a machine that operates in a second precision and uses multiple passes and post processing of partial outputs.
Furthermore, claim 16 recites the limitation of: “post processing of partial outputs”. Claim 16 is dependent on claim 1, in neither claim 1 nor before this limitation in claim 16 is there a mention of “partial outputs”. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the limitations of: “perform an electronic modular conversion from an optical signal to an electronic signal corresponding to an integer modulo p”. A modulo is an operation2 which provides the remainder of dividing one number by another number. An integer modulo p would simply be another integer value if p is an integer, or a floating point number if p is a floating point number. The claim, however, does not define ‘p’. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to be understood as the electronic signal corresponds to an integer, or if the electronic signal corresponds to a floating point number, or if the limitation is meant to be understood as the act of performing an electronic modular conversion includes the act of performing a modulo p operation on the optical signal (as an integer value) such that the an electronic signal corresponds to the result of the modulo p operation on the optical signal, or if the limitation is meant to be understood as the electronic signal corresponds to an integer value and a further calculation, a modular p operation, is performed on the integer.
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 1-3, 6, 8, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VADIM LYUBASHEVSKY ET AL ("SWIFFT: A Modest Proposal for FFT Hashing", FAST SOFTWARE ENCRYPTION; [LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE], SPRINGER BERLIN HEIDELBERG, BERLIN, HEIDELBERG, Pages 54-72 (02-10-2008)), hereinafter, “Lyubashevsky”, in view of Macfaden et al. (Macfaden, A.J., Gordon, G.S.D. & Wilkinson, T.D. An optical Fourier transform coprocessor with direct phase determination. Sci Rep 7, 13667 (2017). doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13733-1), hereinafter, “Macfaden”.
Regarding claim 1, Lyubashevsky teaches:
A hashing method for computing a hashed output based on an input message, (Title regarding FFT Hashing; pg. 56 paragraph 1 regarding SWIFFT used for hash functions; pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 2 regarding a binary string input; pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 5-6 regarding zi as the output (as a hashed output));
the method comprising the steps of: converting the input message into an input matrix; (pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 2 regarding a binary string input, x, multiplied with fixed elements w such that the input string is converted into a matrix of values wi-1x(i,j));
applying a Fourier Transform (FT) to one or more elements of the input matrix to obtain one or more data structures comprising Fourier coefficients; (pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 3 regarding applying the Fourier transform on the input to get the output y(i,j) (as the data structure comprising Fourier coefficients));
and applying a linear-combination transformation across rows of a matrix based on the one or more data structures comprising Fourier coefficients to generate the hashed output. (pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 4 regarding a linear combination across each row of matrix y(i,j) to generate zi).
Lyubashevsky does not explicitly teach:
wherein said FT is an optical FT;
However, Macfaden teaches:
wherein said FT is an optical FT; (Abstract regarding the method of optically performing 2D Fourier transformation; pg. 5 paragraph 5 regarding using an optical Fourier transform coprocessor)
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 Lyubashevsky with the optical Fourier transform coprocessor of Macfaden because an optical Fourier transform coprocessor is a compelling solution to high resolution 2D Fourier transform computational bottlenecks (Macfaden: pg. 5 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 2, Lyubashevsky in view of Macfaden teaches the hashing method according to claim 1, as referenced above.
Lyubashevsky further teaches:
and wherein the one or more data structures comprising Fourier coefficients comprise a matrix of Fourier coefficients. (pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 3 regarding applying the Fourier transform on the input to get the output y(i,j) (as the data structure comprising Fourier coefficients)).
Lyubashevsky does not explicitly teach:
wherein the optical FT is a 2D optical FT,
However, Macfaden teaches:
wherein the optical FT is a 2D optical FT, (Abstract regarding the method of optically performing 2D Fourier transformation; pg. 5 paragraph 5 regarding using an optical Fourier transform coprocessor)
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 Lyubashevsky with the optical Fourier transform coprocessor of Macfaden because an optical Fourier transform coprocessor is a compelling solution to high resolution 2D Fourier transform computational bottlenecks (Macfaden: pg. 5 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 3, Lyubashevsky in view of Macfaden teaches the hashing method according to claim 2, as referenced above.
Lyubashevsky further teaches:
further comprising the step of applying an element wise matrix multiplication of the matrix of Fourier coefficients with an additional matrix of the same size. (pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 3 regarding the matrix y(i,j) multiplied with matrix a(i,j)).
Regarding claim 6, Lyubashevsky in view of Macfaden teaches the hashing method according to claim 1, as referenced above.
Lyubashevsky further teaches:
wherein the step of converting the input message is realized electronically prior to any Fourier Transform. (pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 2 regarding a binary string input, x, multiplied with fixed elements w such that the input string is converted into a matrix of values wi-1x(i,j), which is performed before the Fourier transform step; pg. 60 paragraph 4 regarding the algorithm performed by a processor (which would include the step of converting the input message)).
Lyubashevsky does not explicitly teach:
optical processing
However, Macfaden teaches:
optical processing (Abstract regarding the method of optically performing 2D Fourier transformation; pg. 5 paragraph 5 regarding using an optical Fourier transform coprocessor)
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 Lyubashevsky with the optical Fourier transform coprocessor of Macfaden because an optical Fourier transform coprocessor is a compelling solution to high resolution 2D Fourier transform computational bottlenecks (Macfaden: pg. 5 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 8, Lyubashevsky in view of Macfaden teaches the hashing method according to claim 1, as referenced above.
Lyubashevsky further teaches:
wherein each column of the input matrix is fed substantially in parallel to a Fourier transform prior to the step of applying a Fourier transform, (pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 2 regarding the Fourier transform applied on each column; pg. 56 paragraph 2 regarding the SWIFFT algorithm as highly parallelizable; pg. 60 paragraph 5 regarding parallelizing the computation of the output y);
Lyubashevsky does not explicitly teach:
free-space optical FT module
However, Macfaden teaches:
free-space optical FT module (Abstract regarding the method of optically performing 2D Fourier transformation; pg. 5 paragraph 5 regarding using an optical Fourier transform coprocessor; pg. 7 paragraph 3 regarding the Optical Fourier transform implemented in free space)
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 Lyubashevsky with the optical Fourier transform coprocessor of Macfaden because an optical Fourier transform coprocessor is a compelling solution to high resolution 2D Fourier transform computational bottlenecks (Macfaden: pg. 5 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 19, Lyubashevsky in view of Macfaden teaches the hashing method according to claim 1, as referenced above.
Lyubashevsky further teaches:
wherein the step of converting the input message into an input matrix comprises: converting the input message into a binary input matrix with columns and rows; (pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 2 regarding a binary string input, x is viewed as an nxm binary matrix, x(i,j), and is multiplied with fixed elements w such that the input string and is converted into a matrix of values wi-1x(i,j) with w Є ℤ);
and multiplying the rows of the binary matrix with an integer specific to each row to obtain the input matrix. (pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 2 regarding a binary string input, x is viewed as an nxm binary matrix, x(i,j), and multiplying the ith row with wi-1 , with w Є ℤ).
Regarding claim 18, Lyubashevsky teaches:
A processing system, comprising an electronic processor and, configured to carry out (Abstract, and Pg. 60 paragraph 5 regarding performing the SWIFFT algorithm on a processor);
Lyubashevsky does not explicitly teach:
an optical processor
the hashing method of claim 1.
However, Macfaden teaches:
an optical processor (Abstract regarding the method of optically performing 2D Fourier transformation; pg. 5 paragraph 5 regarding using an optical Fourier transform coprocessor)
Furthermore, Lyubashevsky in view of Macfaden teaches:
the hashing method of claim 1. (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 Lyubashevsky with the optical Fourier transform coprocessor of Macfaden because an optical Fourier transform coprocessor is a compelling solution to high resolution 2D Fourier transform computational bottlenecks (Macfaden: pg. 5 paragraph 5).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyubashevsky, in view of Macfaden, and in further view of Mendlovic et al. (WO 00/72104 A1), hereinafter, “Mendlovic”.
Regarding claim 5, Lyubashevsky in view of Macfaden teaches the hashing method according to claim 1, as referenced above.
Lyubashevsky further teaches:
wherein said step of applying a linear-combination transformation is implemented. (pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 4 regarding a linear combination across each row of matrix y(i,j) to generate zi).
Lyubashevsky does not explicitly teach:
using optical hardware
However, Mendlovic teaches:
using optical hardware (pg. 1 lines 15-28 regarding the general linear transformation (GLT) as a vector-matrix multiplication across rows; pg. 5 lines 12-15 regarding an optical method of applying the GLT and description of the GLT as a plurality of multiplications simultaneously followed by adding together multiplication results)
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 Lyubashevsky in view of Macfaden with the optical hardware of Mendlovic because optical means (of applying the linear combination) allow to parallelize the processing (Mendlovic: pg. 5 lines 8-9).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyubashevsky, in view of Macfaden, and in further view of Jeon et al. (Y. Jeon, B. Park, S. J. Kwon, B. Kim, J. Yun and D. Lee, "BiQGEMM: Matrix Multiplication with Lookup Table for Binary-Coding-Based Quantized DNNs," SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2020, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.1109/SC41405.2020.00099.), hereinafter, “Jeon”.
Regarding claim 7, Lyubashevsky in view of Macfaden teaches the hashing method according to claim 6, as referenced above.
Lyubashevsky further teaches:
wherein a in the step of converting the input message. (pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 2 regarding a binary string input, x, multiplied with fixed elements w such that the input string is converted into a matrix of values wi-1x(i,j)).
Lyubashevsky does not explicitly teach:
look-up table is employed
However, Jeon teaches:
look-up table is employed (pg. 2 column 2 paragraph 2 regarding a matrix multiplication between a binary matrix and another matrix pre-computed and stored in a lookup table)
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 Lyubashevsky in view of Macfaden with the look-up table of Jeon because replacing arithmetic operations with table lookups allows matrix multiplication calculations to be at a high performance and improved bandwidth utilization, and allows the calculations to be reused (Jeon: pg. 2 column 2 paragraph 2).
Deferring indication of allowable subject matter
Due to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections made, regarding claim 17, rendering the Examiner unable to reasonably limitations claimed, the Examiner is deferring decision as to prior art and/or indication of allowable subject matter over prior art pending resolution of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, and 9-16 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 4, the applicant claims a method a hashing method for computing a hashed output based on an input message, whereas the method of claim 1 comprises:
the method comprising the steps of: converting the input message into an input matrix; applying a Fourier Transform (FT) to one or more elements of the input matrix to obtain one or more data structures comprising Fourier coefficients; wherein said FT is an optical FT; and applying a linear-combination transformation across rows of a matrix based on the one or more data structures comprising Fourier coefficients to generate the hashed output.
Furthermore, the method of claim 4 comprises:
The hashing method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of applying an optical Inverse Fourier Transform (IFT) before said step of applying a linear-combination transformation.
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 9-16, the applicant claims a method, a hashing method for computing a hashed output based on an input message, whereas the method of claim 1 comprises:
the method comprising the steps of: converting the input message into an input matrix; applying a Fourier Transform (FT) to one or more elements of the input matrix to obtain one or more data structures comprising Fourier coefficients; wherein said FT is an optical FT; and applying a linear-combination transformation across rows of a matrix based on the one or more data structures comprising Fourier coefficients to generate the hashed output.
Furthermore, the method of claim 8 comprises:
The hashing method according to claim 1, wherein each column of the input matrix is fed substantially in parallel to a free-space optical FT module prior to the step of applying a Fourier transform, wherein the step of applying a Fourier transform is implemented using a free-space optical FT module.
Furthermore, the method of claim 9 comprises:
The hashing method according to claim 8, wherein the one or more data structures comprising Fourier coefficients comprise vectors of Fourier coefficients, and wherein the outputs of the free-space optical FT module are fed into an array of waveguides to represent the vectors of Fourier coefficients.
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.
Lyubashevsky discloses a hashing method based on a binary input message (Title regarding FFT Hashing; pg. 56 paragraph 1 regarding SWIFFT used for hash functions; pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 2 regarding a binary string input; pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 5-6 regarding zi as the output (as a hashed output)). Lyubashevsky further discloses converting the binary input message into a matrix (pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 2 regarding a binary string input, x, multiplied with fixed elements w such that the input string is converted into a matrix of values wi-1x(i,j)), and applying a Fourier transform to one or more elements of the input matrix to obtain one or more data structures comprising Fourier coefficients (pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 3 regarding applying the Fourier transform on the input to get the output y(i,j) (as the data structure comprising Fourier coefficients)). Lyubashevsky further discloses applying a linear-combination transformation across rows of a matrix based on the one or more data structures comprising the Fourier coefficients to generate the hashed output (pg. 55 section 1.1 paragraph 4 regarding a linear combination across each row of matrix y(i,j) to generate zi). Lyubashevsky does not explicitly teach the Fourier transform being an optical Fourier transform, however, Lyubashevsky in view of Macfaden discloses the optical Fourier transform (Macfaden: Abstract regarding the method of optically performing 2D Fourier transformation; pg. 5 paragraph 5 regarding using an optical Fourier transform coprocessor). However, Lyubashevsky, and Lyubashevsky in view of Macfaden, and Lyubashevsky in view of Macfaden in further view of Mendlovic and Lyubashevsky in view of Macfaden in further view of Jeon fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Collins discloses converting an input message into a binary matrix (Column 8 lines 30-39 regarding light spots as input data; Column 7 lines 60-67 regarding the binary matrix shown). Collins further discloses multiplying the binary matrix 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), and applying an optical Fourier transform to obtain Fourier coefficients (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; Column 7 lines 60-67 regarding output column vector B). Collins further discloses applying a linear combination across 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). However, Collins does not explicitly teach a hashing method or a hashed output. Furthermore, Collins, and Collins in view of Zhang fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
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”, discloses a method for an optical Fourier transformed on a binary string of values (pg. 2 column 2 paragraph 2 regarding the binary sequence to be transformed; Fig. 1 regarding the optical processor). However, Goodman fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Jalali et al. (U.S. Patent 8870060 B2)
Discloses a system including an optical processor, which performs a Fourier transform (Fig. 2 reference numbers 30, 32, 34, 36, 40 regarding the optical processor)
Furthermore, the system comprises an electrical processor which transforms the optical signal to an electrical signal(Fig. 2 reference numbers 42, 44, 46, 48, 50)
Does not explicitly disclose a modulo operation used to transform the optical signal to an electrical signal
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME ANTHONY KLOSTERMAN II whose telephone number is (571)272-0541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 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
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
1 Modulo operation. (2020, October). web.archive.org/web/20201021052726/https://mathsisfun.com/numbers/modulo.html
Regarding the definition of a modulo operation
2 Modulo operation. (2020, October). web.archive.org/web/20201021052726/https://mathsisfun.com/numbers/modulo.html
Regarding the definition of a modulo operation
Prosecution Insights