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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 03/12/2026, in which claims 1-2, 6, 13, 16 were amended, claims 3-4, 7-8, 24-27, 41-43 were withdrawn, claims 9-11, 14-15, 17, 19-23, 28-40 were cancelled, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “wherein the at least one deposited mirror or optical filtering device is positioned above the at least one thin film photoresponsive element” while claim 1 on which claim 5 depends already recites “at least one deposited mirror or optical filtering device positioned over the at least one thin film photoresponsive element”. Thus, claim 5 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 5-6, 12-13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US Pub. 20210011276) in view of Bilodeu et al. (US Pub. 20210192330).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Nakamura discloses in Fig. 1-Fig. 4, paragraph [0007], [0029]-[0091] a thin film neuromorphic opto-electronic device, comprising:
at least one thin film photoresponsive element [40]; and
at least one deposited mirror or optical filtering device [20 and 30] positioned over the at least one thin film photoresponsive element [40], comprising a plurality of reflective thin film stacks [23, 24, 33, 34] with an interstitial medium therebetween forming at least two optical cavities [G1, G2].
wherein each optical cavity [G1, G2] is configured to modify at least a first and second signal being received by the photoresponsive element.
Nakamura fails to disclose
wherein the photoresponsive element comprises a summation element configured to accept the first and second signals and perform an operation resulting in an electrical signal indicative of a weighted sum of the first and second signals.
Bilodeu et al. discloses in paragraph [0028]-[0029], [0129], [0142], [0145]
wherein the photoresponsive element comprises a summation element configured to accept the first and second signals and perform an operation resulting in an electrical signal indicative of a weighted sum of the first and second signals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Bilodeu et al. into the method of Nakamura to include wherein the photoresponsive element comprises a summation element configured to accept the first and second signals and perform an operation resulting in an electrical signal indicative of a weighted sum of the first and second signals. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakamura in the above manner for the purpose of providing a thin-film optoelectronic neuron using an optical weighting scheme, enabling to broadcast to many distant neurons using light and permiting a wider variety of algorithms to be implemented [paragraph [0128]-[0129], [0138], [0142], [0145] of Bilodeu et al.].
The limitation “configured to modify at least a first and second signal being received by the photoresponsive element” and “configured to accept the first and second signals and perform an operation resulting in an electrical signal indicative of a weighted sum of the first and second signals” directs to manner of operation and intended function of claimed device.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In this case, Nakamura and Bilodeu et al. teaches all structural limitations of the claim. Thus, it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 2 directs to manner of operation and intended function of claimed device.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In this case, Nakamura and Bilodeu et al. teaches all structural limitations of the claim. Thus, it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 4, paragraph [0033], [0042]-[0045], [0066], [0073]-[0076] wherein a size of each of the at least two optical cavities [G1 and G2] can be controlled via a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device.
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura discloses in Fig. 2, Fig. 3, paragraph [0049]-[0063] wherein the at least one mirror or optical filtering device comprises a Bragg mirror, an asymmetric mirror, a bandstop filter [the structure formed from alternating dielectric layers of high and low refractive index as shown in Fig. 3 is a Bragg mirror].
Regarding claim 13, Nakamura discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 4, paragraph [0032], [0065]
wherein each of the at least two optical cavities [G1, G2] comprises a Fabry-Perot cavity or a multi-cavity [a Fabry-Perot cavity].
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0170]-[0171]
a plurality of deposited mirrors or optical filtering devices [20 and 30] positioned over the at least one thin film photoresponsive element [40], and
The limitation “wherein the at least one thin film photoresponsive element is configured to accept a plurality of signals modified by the at least two optical cavities, wherein the summation element performs an operation resulting in an electrical signal indicative of a weighted sum of the plurality of signals. sum different same color signals” directs to manner of operation and intended function of claimed device.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In this case, Nakamura and Bilodeu et al. teaches all structural limitations of the claim. Thus, it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 18, Nakamura and Bilodeu et al. discloses the thin film neuromorphic opto-electronic device of claim 1.
Bilodeu et al. discloses in paragraph [0062] a product comprising a thin film neuromorphic opto-electronic device, the product selected from a group consisting of a flat panel display, a curved display, a computer monitor, a computer, a medical monitor, a television, a billboard, a light for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, a heads-up display, a fully or partially transparent display, a flexible display, a rollable display, a foldable display, a stretchable display, a laser printer, a telephone, a mobile phone, a tablet, a phablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, a laptop computer, a digital camera, a camcorder, a viewfinder, a micro-display, a 3-D display, a virtual reality or augmented reality display or device, a vehicle, a video wall comprising multiple displays tiled together, a theater or stadium screen, a light therapy device, and a sign.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Bilodeu et al. into the method of Nakamura to include a product comprising the thin film neuromorphic opto-electronic device of claim 1, the product selected from a group consisting of a flat panel display, a curved display, a computer monitor, a computer, a medical monitor, a television, a billboard, a light for interior or exterior illumination and/or signaling, a heads-up display, a fully or partially transparent display, a flexible display, a rollable display, a foldable display, a stretchable display, a laser printer, a telephone, a mobile phone, a tablet, a phablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wearable device, a laptop computer, a digital camera, a camcorder, a viewfinder, a micro-display, a 3-D display, a virtual reality or augmented reality display or device, a vehicle, a video wall comprising multiple displays tiled together, a theater or stadium screen, a light therapy device, and a sign. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakamura in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable application of the thin film neuromorphic opto-electronic device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5-6, 12-13, 16, 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art discloses similar materials, devices and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights