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 .
Amendments
This action is in response to amendments filed November 26th, 2025, in which Claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 are amended. No claims have been cancelled nor added. The amendments have been entered, and Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zahedinejad, “Spin Hall nano-oscillator arrays: towards GHz neuromorphics.”
Regarding Claim 1, Zahedinejad teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: an input unit including one or more first antennas that is configured to convert a first high-frequency signal into a first radio wave and emit the first radio wave which propagates in a space, the first high-frequency signal being a microwave signal or a terahertz-wave signal (Zahedinejad, pg. 52, 1st paragraph, “we combined the two microwave signals … the combined signals were then fed to a microwave circulator connected to the RF point of the bias-tee to inject the two microwave signals directly to the SHNO array” where each of “a microwave circulator” and “the SHNO array” are a space which fulfills the claims limitations); an output unit including one or more second antennas that is configured to convert a received second radio wave which propagates in the space into a second high-frequency signal, the second high-frequency signal being a microwave signal or a terahertz-wave signal (Zahedinejad, pg. 52, 1st paragraph, “the output signal was then sent back through the RF port of the bias-tee and then to the third port of the circulator to the LNA before it was captured by SA”); a reservoir unit that is provided between the input unit and the output unit, that includes a plurality of semiconductor elements for modulating the first radio wave which propagates in the space by exhibiting non-linear response to the first radio wave, and that outputs the second radio wave obtained by modulating the first radio wave (Zahedinejad, pg. 51, 3rd-5th paragraphs, “they mapped the input frequencies into two RF signals injected into an antenna close to the STNO chain. The frequences of one or more of the free-running STNOs become phase-locked to one or the other (or both) of the injected RF signals when their frequencies were close to the natural frequency of each STNO” shows the previous work, whereas “Here we want to demonstrate that our 2D SHNO arrays are able to reproduce the same synchronization maps” shows that Zahedinejad uses SHNOs in a reservoir unit to modulate with a non-linear response, see pg. 52, 1st paragraph, “The injected signals
f
A
and
f
B
phase-lock with the SHNOs” and SHNOs are semiconductor elements, see pg. 10, Fig. 1.2 & pg. 58, Fig. 4.2, “CoFeB” “Si”).
Regarding Claim 2, Zahedinejad teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). Zahedinejad further teaches wherein each of the plurality of semiconductor elements is a one-dimensional semiconductor (Zahedinejad, pg. 10, Figs. 1.2a,d “SHNO devices,” “nanowire”) or a two-dimensional layered semiconductor (Zahedinejad, pg. 10, Figs. 1.2b,c & 2nd paragraph “NiFe/Pt bilayer” “free layer” “adjacent Ta layer acting as an HM” & pg. 58, Fig. 4.2, “CoFeB” “Si”).
Claim 3, when incorporated into Claim 2, recites wherein each of the plurality of semiconductor elements is a nanowire diode or a two-dimensional layered semi-conductor, which has already been demonstrated to be taught by Zahedinejad via the two-dimensional layered semiconductor alternative limitation (Zahedinejad, pg. 10, Figs. 1.2b,c).
Regarding Claim 4, Zahedinejad teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). Zahedinejad further teaches wherein the reservoir unit includes a first region and a second region, wherein a density of the plurality of semiconductor elements in the second region is lower than the density in the first region (Zahedinejad, pg. 52, Fig. 3.8b, where the larger circle has one element and the smaller circle has four elements, thus a first region with lower density than a second region).
PNG
media_image1.png
229
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Zahedinejad teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). Zahedinejad further teaches wherein the input unit or the output unit includes one or more bowtie antennas (Zahedinejad, pg. 51, 2nd paragraph, “injected into an antenna close” & pg. 10, Fig. 1.2c,d with a bow-tie shape & pg. 11, 1st paragraph, “bow-tie-shaped magnetic nanoconstriction”).
Claim 8 recites precisely the method performed by the apparatus of Claim 1, and is thus rejected for reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahedinejad, “Spin Hall nano-oscillator arrays: towards GHz neuromorphics,” in view of Romera et al., “Vowel recognition with four coupled spin-torque nano-oscillators.”
Regarding Claim 6, Zahedinejad teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). Zahedinejad further teaches wherein the output unit converts the second high-frequency signal into a direct current signal (Zahedinejad, pg. 24, 1st paragraph, “The high-frequency change in the resistance results in an oscillating voltage which … drops a DC voltage component” to measure the output).
Zahedinejad does not teach to weight the direct current signal. However, Romera (which teaches the device into which Zahedinejad intends their device to be used as) teaches to convert the second high-frequency signal into a direct current signal (Romera, pg. 7, 2nd paragraph, “Synchronization detection through oscillator rectified voltages … which causes synchronized oscillators to generate a supplementary direct voltage” with 3rd paragraph, “two differential amplifiers (voltage to current)”) and weights the direct current signal (Romera, pg. 7, 3rd paragraph, “then allows detection of whether the oscillator is experiencing synchronization … two differential amplifiers (voltage to current) in parallel. It is followed by a gain stage” where “gain” denotes weights). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to include the rest of the device into which Zahedinejad intends their invention to be used, from Romera, with the reservoir device of Zahedinejad. The motivation to do so is “we want to demonstrate that our 2D SHNO array are able to reproduce the same synchronization maps” and “the proposed approach [of Romera] will be hard to scale up” whereas Zahedinejad’s arrays will be easier (Zahedinejad, pg. 51, 3rd-4th paragraphs).
Regarding Claim 7, the Zahedinejad/Romera combination of Claim 6 teaches the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). Romera further teaches a learning circuit that adjusts a magnitude of weighting for the direct current signal, based on teacher data, wherein the input unit adds the weighted direct current signal to the first high-frequency signal (Romera, pg. 9, Extended Data Fig. 1. “applied direct currents” & pg. 6, 2nd column, 1st paragraph, “If we are in the training procedure and the vowel is not properly classified, the online learning algorithm calculates how the four direct currents should be modified to reduce the recognition error”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to include the rest of the device into which Zahedinejad intends their invention to be used, from Romera, with the reservoir device of Zahedinejad. The motivation to do so is “we want to demonstrate that our 2D SHNO array are able to reproduce the same synchronization maps” and “the proposed approach [of Romera] will be hard to scale up” whereas Zahedinejad’s arrays will be easier (Zahedinejad, pg. 51, 3rd-4th paragraphs).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 26th, 2025 have been fully considered, but are not fully persuasive.
All 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, as well as the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, of the previous office action have bene withdrawn due to applicants arguments and amendments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered, but are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended limitations propagates in a space are not taught by Zahedinejad, by citing the prior art “to inject the two microwave signals directly into the SHNO array,” arguing that injecting directly is different from “propagates in a space.” However, the exact citation identified by the applicant teaches “fed to a microwave circulator” where “circulator” is a space in which the microwave electromagnetic wave propagates. Further, “the SHNO array” is another space in which the microwave electromagnetic wave propagates, see pg. 52, Fig. 3.8(b), the grey area around the neuron elements.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the other dependent and independent claims rely on the same features as argued with respect to Claim 1, and are thus also unpersuasive.
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 BRIAN M SMITH whose telephone number is (469)295-9104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm Pacific.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/BRIAN M SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122